PDA

View Full Version : Michael Savage on History Channel Dogfights



CzechTexan
08-29-2007, 07:20 PM
Radio talk show host Michael Savage is talking about the Dogfights TV shows right now. He got the first full season on DVD and says he loves it and it should be required viewing for all boys in America. This IS the Savage Nation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

CzechTexan
08-29-2007, 07:20 PM
Radio talk show host Michael Savage is talking about the Dogfights TV shows right now. He got the first full season on DVD and says he loves it and it should be required viewing for all boys in America. This IS the Savage Nation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Xiolablu3
08-29-2007, 07:39 PM
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY

Dolemite-
08-29-2007, 07:55 PM
Plus the animation seems goofy and is sped up to make the fighters fly across the screen at what seems like mach 2, even in the WW1 episode. I guess so the ADD generation of today doesn't get bored having to watch dogfights happen in real time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Copperhead311th
08-29-2007, 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 Xiolablu3:
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but what you FAIL to realize through those blue tinted glasses of yours is that this was ROBIN F*CKING OLDS & B.E. Holister. Robin Olds being one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever put @ss to aircraft seat. and not some ho hum just got in theater greenie. This man was a killer. plain & simple. and I'd have given a damn sensa with a sling shot the edge in that fight given that Robin was the pilot and they had they same set up.
But keep in mind the source as well. this the History channel and not the WWII Aviation Enthusiast Channel. the don't get, & haven't researched the countless hours we have here on the subject. they don't understand the Complexities of a P-38's tighter turn Vs the 109's Greater roll. the don't go into that much detail WHY? Because the AVERAGE VIEWER wont get it. while we fully understand here in our community the finest details...poor Joe Blow in Hoboken, New Jersey sitting his fat @ss in a recliner drinking a PBR and munching on Cheeto's wont have a f-ing clue. So they have to break it down and keep it simple.

as for the firepower edge...IMHO its a fair match. 4' 50's & a 20mm is a fair match up vs the 109's of the time.

Worf101
08-29-2007, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CzechTexan:
Radio talk show host Michael Savage is talking about the Dogfights TV shows right now. He got the first full season on DVD and says he loves it and it should be required viewing for all boys in America. This IS the Savage Nation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I listen to Mr. Savage, real name something or other, all the time. He fluctuates between absolute sanity and complete lunacy at the drop of a dime very entertaining, but I wouldn't want to be within 10,000 yards of the man.. he's quite literally mad dog nuts... Just my opinion but one formed from LISTENING to him very carefully.

Da Worfster

Enforcer572005
08-29-2007, 09:56 PM
yeah, it's a bit cartoonish sometimes, but most of hte time they do a great job of telling the story of air combat. I keep seeing stuff I never heard of happening, as well as seeing stories fleshed out that I've read about since I was a kid.

The ones about the Isreali Air Force are my favorites, as they detail combats that have had little published about them, and are narrated by the aces whose names were kept secret for decades.

All those episodes are excellent though. I don't believe they are strictly trying to make the US look good at anyone's expense, as they have other nation's pilot's exploits as well.

I'm glad they were able to get Olds' story before he left us.

And the P-38 was extremely manuverable if you knew how to use it, like differential throttle.
4 of our top 10 aces scored most of their kills in it, including our two top ones flying against the most manuverable fighters in the world.

The Zeke's roll rate is kinda slow to initially.

HuninMunin
08-29-2007, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but what you FAIL to realize through those blue tinted glasses of yours is that this was ROBIN F*CKING OLDS & B.E. Holister. Robin Olds being one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever put @ss to aircraft seat. and not some ho hum just got in theater greenie. This man was a killer. plain & simple. and I'd have given a damn sensa with a sling shot the edge in that fight given that Robin was the pilot and they had they same set up.
But keep in mind the source as well. this the History channel and not the WWII Aviation Enthusiast Channel. the don't get, & haven't researched the countless hours we have here on the subject. they don't understand the Complexities of a P-38's tighter turn Vs the 109's Greater roll. the don't go into that much detail WHY? Because the AVERAGE VIEWER wont get it. while we fully understand here in our community the finest details...poor Joe Blow in Hoboken, New Jersey sitting his fat @ss in a recliner drinking a PBR and munching on Cheeto's wont have a f-ing clue. So they have to break it down and keep it simple.

as for the firepower edge...IMHO its a fair match. 4' 50's & a 20mm is a fair match up vs the 109's of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the most stupid posts I've read for a long time - and I visit the imdb boards.
1. What on earth makes you think that the P-38 has a tighter and/or faster turn then the 109?
2. So the concept of american history shows is not historical record but just telling the viewer something he understands?
Well right then.

The P51 was a crappy dogfighter.
True? Yes. Unprecise? Shure. But who gives ****?

PS
Take this post with a grain of salt.
Late hour here.

MrMojok
08-29-2007, 10:06 PM
The frothing at the mouth exhibited by Savage on his show doesn't hold a candle to the average Copperhead311th post.

Esel1964
08-29-2007, 10:09 PM
It may have it's faults,but,it's better than most of the tripe on TV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

woofiedog
08-29-2007, 10:44 PM
I recently picked up the first season set. One of the best parts of this set are the air combat stories being told by the real pilots themself's.

It has some faults... but what doesn't.

Copperhead311th
08-29-2007, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
The frothing at the mouth exhibited by Savage on his show doesn't hold a candle to the average Copperhead311th post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you thank you. youv'e all been a lovley audiance i'll be here all night. please drive through. well my work here is done.
So i'm off to the bat cave.
& ty for noticing Mojok. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Altho i don't know who this Savage clown is...sorry boys dion't listen to to much talk radio...that's unless i'm Driving with my grand paw.

@ HuninMunin : you obvously havn't been around here long enough to read the cr@p that comes from this keybord sometimes have you?
Sometimes it's real sometimes it's not.
Sometimes i just turn on the juice & see what shakes loose for Schitz & giggles.
the above post was a little of both. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
08-29-2007, 11:40 PM
Actualy I'm around since the very beginning.
I must admit though, that I've never looked at you from this perspective.
Adds a whole new dimension http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
08-30-2007, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm the narrator says "august 23rd 1943 P-51 Mustang is beeing chased by..." --&gt; 2min30sec

I thought first P-51s didn't reach active service until december 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ..

woofiedog
08-30-2007, 06:36 AM
P-51Bs and Cs started to arrive in England in August and October 1943. The P-51B/C versions were sent to 15 fighter groups that were part of the 8th and 9th Air Forces in England, and the 12th and 15th in Italy (the southern part of Italy was under Allied control by late 1943). Other deployments included the China Burma India Theater (CBI).

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but what you FAIL to realize through those blue tinted glasses of yours is that this was ROBIN F*CKING OLDS & B.E. Holister. Robin Olds being one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever put @ss to aircraft seat. and not some ho hum just got in theater greenie. This man was a killer. plain & simple. and I'd have given a damn sensa with a sling shot the edge in that fight given that Robin was the pilot and they had they same set up.
But keep in mind the source as well. this the History channel and not the WWII Aviation Enthusiast Channel. the don't get, & haven't researched the countless hours we have here on the subject. they don't understand the Complexities of a P-38's tighter turn Vs the 109's Greater roll. the don't go into that much detail WHY? Because the AVERAGE VIEWER wont get it. while we fully understand here in our community the finest details...poor Joe Blow in Hoboken, New Jersey sitting his fat @ss in a recliner drinking a PBR and munching on Cheeto's wont have a f-ing clue. So they have to break it down and keep it simple.

as for the firepower edge...IMHO its a fair match. 4' 50's & a 20mm is a fair match up vs the 109's of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem I have has absolutely nothing to do with RObin Olds, I am sure hes a great pilot. The part I am talking about is acutally missing off that clip I posted. Where they compare the tweo planes.

BGs_Ricky
08-30-2007, 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 woofiedog:
P-51Bs and Cs started to arrive in England in August and October 1943. The P-51B/C versions were sent to 15 fighter groups that were part of the 8th and 9th Air Forces in England, and the 12th and 15th in Italy (the southern part of Italy was under Allied control by late 1943). Other deployments included the China Burma India Theater (CBI). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First P-51 combat mission in Europe was flown by the 354th FG on December 1st, 1943.

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 07:05 AM
The first *AMERICAN* P51 combat mission over Europe, I think you mean Ricky...Or do you mean first P51B/C specificlly?


Could have been an RAF Mustang.

They entered service a long time before the Americans started using them.

'About 20 of the Mustang Mk I were delivered to the RAF and made their combat debut on 10 May 1942. With their long range and excellent low-level performance, they were employed effectively for tactical reconnaissance and ground-attack duties over the English Channel'

They probably just got the model wrong in the show. Robin Olds said P51, so they assumed P51B/C.

A lone Mustang does sound very much like a Reconassance mission, which is what some of the early Mustangs were used for, I believe?

luftluuver
08-30-2007, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
Hmm the narrator says "august 23rd 1943 P-51 Mustang is beeing chased by..." --&gt; 2min30sec

I thought first P-51s didn't reach active service until december 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like Olds mis-IDed some 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BGs_Ricky
08-30-2007, 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 Xiolablu3:
The first *AMERICAN* P51 combat mission over Europe, I think you mean Ricky...Or do you mean first P51B/C specificlly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I meant American P-51s.

They just got the wrong year in the show, it happened in 1944, not 1943.. From Wikipedia, article on Olds:

"Lieutenant Olds completed fighter pilot training with the 329th Fighter Group, based at Grand Central Air Terminal in Glendale, California. In early 1944 he was part of the cadre assigned to build up the newly activated 434th Fighter Squadron and its parent 479th Fighter Group, based at Lomita, California. Olds logged 650 hours of flying time during training, including 250 hours in the P-38 Lightning, as the 479th trained to become a combat group. It departed the Los Angeles area on April 15 for Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, and shipped aboard the USS Argentina for Europe on May 3. The 479th arrived in Scotland on May 14, 1944, and entrained for RAF Wattisham, England, where it arrived the next day.[20]

The 479th began combat on May 26, flying bomber escort missions and attacking transportation targets in occupied France in advance of the invasion of Normandy.[21] Olds flew an older P-38J Lightning he nicknamed Scat, the first of many fighters bearing the name. His crew chief, T/Sgt. Glen A. Wold, said that Olds showed an immediate interest in aircraft maintenance and learned emergency servicing under Wold. He also insisted his aircraft be waxed to reduce air resistance and helped his maintenance crew carry out their tasks.[22] On July 24 Olds was promoted to captain and became a flight and later squadron leader.

In Scat III, Olds shot down two Fw-190s following a low-level bridge-bombing mission to Montmirail, France, on August 14. Eleven days later he and his wingman became separated from the group on an escort mission to Berlin, and attacked a large gaggle of Bf-109s, estimated at 50 or more in number. Despite severe battle damage to his own plane, including loss of a side window of its canopy, Olds shot down two during the dogfight and another on the way home to become an ace.[23][24] He made eight claims while flying the P-38 (five of which are credited by the Air Force Historical Research Agency) and was originally credited as the top-scoring P-38 pilot of the ETO.[25]"

woofiedog
08-30-2007, 08:47 AM
BGs_Ricky... Yes... I'm wrong about P-51B/C's that early in combat. But are those P-51 Photo Recon's that are being escorted?

From the book by Robert Gruenhagen.

That... out of the contract for Mustang I's 55 were modified as photo recon variants for the Army Air Corp.

So if Old's was escorting P-51's could it have been the Army Air Corp photo recon's that he was protecting at the time?

I'll have to slap on the DVD and watch the program later today and see the date they give for this air engagement. "1943 or 1944"

BGs_Ricky
08-30-2007, 08:54 AM
Woofiedog I really don't know about those recce P-51s....might have been...but I think that usually recce planes flew unescorted...

Anyway, if you read that article about Olds, you'll see that he flew in 1944, and that very fight described in the show happened in August '44, not '43.

Another link:
http://www.acepilots.com/eto/olds.html

DuxCorvan
08-30-2007, 09:11 AM
I must say it: while the P-38 did really well in the Pacific, it fared rather poorly over Europe, and the best German fighters generally played around it. That's why they were promptly replaced as escort fighters for the 8th, the latest types preferably acting in the PTO.

The main advantages of P-38, speed and durabilty, gave it a big edge against most IJA types, generally slower and weakly armed -more fit for TnB than for the BnZ game the P-38 favoured. In Europe, these advantages vanished before fighters with a heavy punch that played the same speedy BnZ game, in far nimbler planes.

huggy87
08-30-2007, 09:23 AM
If you will allow me all to toot my own horn for one minute. I trained Bo, the tall blonde Top Gun pilot they use to describe a couple of the fights, when he did his super hornet transition. I've always enjoyed flying, and I wasn't too bad a pilot, but I was never as passionate as he was. This guy lived and breathed BFM, probably why he was Top Gun's BFM SME. If there was ever a shooting war he would be the one to be a multi-ace, while I would be just happy to make it home alive.

Now, I'm surprised my name didn't make the credits as a consultant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

berg417448
08-30-2007, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BGs_Ricky:
Woofiedog I really don't know about those recce P-51s....might have been...but I think that usually recce planes flew unescorted...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read a bout a number of photo recon planes being escorted. I've seen specific mention of photo recon Lightnings and Mosquitos being escorted by Mustangs.

luftluuver
08-30-2007, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BGs_Ricky:
Woofiedog I really don't know about those recce P-51s....might have been...but I think that usually recce planes flew unescorted...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read a bout a number of photo recon planes being escorted. I've seen specific mention of photo recon Lightnings and Mosquitos being escorted by Mustangs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes tac recce would be but very doubtful strategic would be as a gaggle of a/c would attract a lot of attention.

Gibbage1
08-30-2007, 10:10 AM
The problem with Dogfight is that its "stats" are very general and broken down for the average joe. Its something that should be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, every pilot I have spoken with that flew the P-38 vs a 109 in real life told me they not only could out turn it, but DID! Im not talking arm-chair pilots, but WWII vets who survived by out-turning 109's. I have had conversations with 5 WWII P-38 vets, and 3 flew in Europe, and all 3 said they DID out turn 109's.

As for giving them firepower, its all in how you view it. The 30MM Mk-108 was an anti-bomber gun that spit out a lot of low velocity grenades in a general direction to hit something the size of a B-17. It was not the best anti-fighter weapon, and the MG's were not very usefull also. So, for fighter to fighter, the P-38 did have the best armament. A lot more trigger time also.

Im sure a lot of the blue boys are going to call BS, but its hard to argue with vets who really flew the darn things.

Also, there withdraw from the 8th AF had nothing to do with performance, but everything to do with pilot comfort. Since the pilot was not behind a big hot engine, it got VERY VERY cold at high alt, and a lot of pilots got frost bite on there hands and feet on long patrols. A frozen pilot is not a good pilot. Not till the L did they have a good cockpit heater, but by then it was already being replaced by much cheaper P-51's.

faustnik
08-30-2007, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im sure a lot of the blue boys are going to call BS, but its hard to argue with vets who really flew the darn things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the typical way many people look at things around here. They come up with an idea like "P-38s out-turn Bf109s" and then try to find pilot accounts that support that. Usually it's tied to one "side" or the other. Your post above clearly indicates your POV.

Truth is for every P-38 pilot that says he out-turned a 109, there is a 109 pilot that said he out-turned a P-38. The situation was complex, changing with speed, altitude, loadout and many other factors. Certainly P-38 pilots were able to out-turn Bf109s at times. Other times, Bf109 pilots, even 190 pilots, were able to out-turn P-38s.

The History Channel promotes this type of thinking in their entertaining Dogfight show. Anyone really interested in the subject would look deeper into the how, what and where of the matchup from all angles and only then try to advantages and disadvantages. Of course that doesn't always lead to a "my favorite is better" conclusion, so, investigate at your own risk.

Daiichidoku
08-30-2007, 10:26 AM
bolillo loco is absolutely correct

he has always told me most ppl ignore the 38s record in the med

funny...cuz 38 operated in italy...isnt that europe?

38s had more kills in MTO than 51s and 47 put together

"fared rather poorly over Europe, and the best German fighters generally played around it."

ask any pilot of a "best german fighter" what he thought of 38s around sardinia, italy, yugoslavia...

faustnik
08-30-2007, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

"fared rather poorly over Europe, and the best German fighters generally played around it." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the wing intercoolers and cockpit heating setups were valid problems, as well as roll rate and compressibility.

The P-47s turbocharged R-2800 was impressive at high altitude.

So, even as a P-38 fan, I see the issues with the ETO situation.

Blutarski2004
08-30-2007, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The problem with Dogfight is that its "stats" are very general and broken down for the average joe. Its something that should be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, every pilot I have spoken with that flew the P-38 vs a 109 in real life told me they not only could out turn it, but DID! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Gibbage, what type of training did your pilot acquaintances receive before going overseas? Were they P38 qualified? Or were they trained as single-engine pilots?

Bewolf
08-30-2007, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im sure a lot of the blue boys are going to call BS, but its hard to argue with vets who really flew the darn things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the typical way many people look at things around here. They come up with an idea like "P-38s out-turn Bf109s" and then try to find pilot accounts that support that. Usually it's tied to one "side" or the other. Your post above clearly indicates your POV.

Truth is for every P-38 pilot that says he out-turned a 109, there is a 109 pilot that said he out-turned a P-38. The situation was complex, changing with speed, altitude, loadout and many other factors. Certainly P-38 pilots were able to out-turn Bf109s at times. Other times, Bf109 pilots, even 190 pilots, were able to out-turn P-38s.

The History Channel promotes this type of thinking in their entertaining Dogfight show. Anyone really interested in the subject would look deeper into the how, what and where of the matchup from all angles and only then try to advantages and disadvantages. Of course that doesn't always lead to a "my favorite is better" conclusion, so, investigate at your own risk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much what I was going to throw in.
Those poor sobs that did not manage to outturn the 109 hardly are able to talk about it anymore.

That said, aside the usual talk about the P38 doing good in the med, I never saw any reports or data suggesting it did (nneither that it did not, for that matter). I'd be interested in some more in depth info about that. Anybody has some sources?

crucislancer
08-30-2007, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The problem with Dogfight is that its "stats" are very general and broken down for the average joe. Its something that should be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, every pilot I have spoken with that flew the P-38 vs a 109 in real life told me they not only could out turn it, but DID! Im not talking arm-chair pilots, but WWII vets who survived by out-turning 109's. I have had conversations with 5 WWII P-38 vets, and 3 flew in Europe, and all 3 said they DID out turn 109's.

As for giving them firepower, its all in how you view it. The 30MM Mk-108 was an anti-bomber gun that spit out a lot of low velocity grenades in a general direction to hit something the size of a B-17. It was not the best anti-fighter weapon, and the MG's were not very usefull also. So, for fighter to fighter, the P-38 did have the best armament. A lot more trigger time also.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree.

I think what people fail to realize is that despite the subject matter, it needs to be put forth in a way that everyone can understand. That's the nature of TV, for the most part. It's rare to see a documentary of any kind that discusses this subject in great detail. Dogfights is like reading the intro paragraph to a wikipedia entry. You get a good overview, but it's not the whole picture.

Regarding the Olds P-38/bf109 story: Yeah, there are some errors. They have them, and it's not the first documentary, nor will it be the last, to have them. The date one is a really bad one to have, and I really don't know how that one slipped by. Giving the P-38 the nod in armament makes sense in a very simple way: It has more guns. Again, lowest common denominator in TV.

But, I think they get a lot more right then they get credit for, at least here on these boards.

As far as Savage goes, I'm hit and miss with him. That's great that he likes the show. He has a ton of listeners, it could only help History Channel.

faustnik
08-30-2007, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
Giving the P-38 the nod in armament makes sense in a very simple way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


P-38's guns would have far greater range and accuracy then Mk108 and 2xMg131 armed Bf109.

HayateAce
08-30-2007, 11:03 AM
Those here without blue-tinted brains have always known that the 38 was a superior fighter to either the 109 or 190.

It's simply too bitter for the waffles to choke down this fact of life. They can see that the luft lost ww2, but they cannot come to grips with the whys. But it's too late for that now, the boys already did their talking with 1x20mm and 4x.50 and the record is sealed.

http://www.historylink101.com/ww2photo/p-38-lighting-1.jpg

Gibbage1
08-30-2007, 11:08 AM
The P-38 also had great performance in North Afrika. Also, in the Europe where people say it did "badly" it still gave more then it got in the terms of kills. Something like a 2 to 1 kill/death ratio, but I guess unless its 10 to 1, thats "poor performance" or something.

BGs_Ricky
08-30-2007, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

Pretty much what I was going to throw in.
Those poor sobs that did not manage to outturn the 109 hardly are able to talk about it anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

bhunter2112
08-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Micheal Savage is the best and Dogfights on the history channel is a close second.

Bremspropeller
08-30-2007, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand, every pilot I have spoken with that flew the P-38 vs a 109 in real life told me they not only could out turn it, but DID! Im not talking arm-chair pilots, but WWII vets who survived by out-turning 109's. I have had conversations with 5 WWII P-38 vets, and 3 flew in Europe, and all 3 said they DID out turn 109's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There are also Luftwaffe pilots that would back this up. The Lightning was a bad surprise for lots of Lw pilots in the mediterranian theatre who thought of an easy victory. Steinhoff is just one example.


Gib, weren't some Lightnings held for fighter-bomber use around and after D-Day?
If yes, which AF still operated them?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Other times, Bf109 pilots, even 190 pilots, were able to out-turn P-38s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much depends on the 38 model and the way the planes are flown.
Early Lightnings had compressibility issues (those were partly solved by late J models) and elevator lock-ups.
Heavy controls were solved by boost systems.

At high speeds, few planes were really doing well against the 190.

faustnik
08-30-2007, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
weren't some Lightnings held for fighter-bomber use around and after D-Day?
If yes, which AF still operated them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

9th AF

Jaws2002
08-30-2007, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
bolillo loco is absolutely correct

he has always told me most ppl ignore the 38s record in the med

funny...cuz 38 operated in italy...isnt that europe?

38s had more kills in MTO than 51s and 47 put together

"fared rather poorly over Europe, and the best German fighters generally played around it."

ask any pilot of a "best german fighter" what he thought of 38s around sardinia, italy, yugoslavia... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Over Ploiesti and Romania the Lightning didn't do that good:

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



They had there P-38's Blackest day (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200312/ai_n9310834).


IAR-80 FTW!!!!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/poza4.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-30-2007, 12:19 PM
Just watched the clips. nice to see someone trying to render the dogfights with proper computer graphics that`s better than IL2 for a change.

I thought it was funny when he attacked the 109s but forgot his fuel and was going so fast he just shot past the other 2 instead! Guess mistakes are allowable as long as you recover from it.

Hope it appears on British Tv so i can give it a proper watch.

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The problem with Dogfight is that its "stats" are very general and broken down for the average joe. Its something that should be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand, every pilot I have spoken with that flew the P-38 vs a 109 in real life told me they not only could out turn it, but DID! Im not talking arm-chair pilots, but WWII vets who survived by out-turning 109's. I have had conversations with 5 WWII P-38 vets, and 3 flew in Europe, and all 3 said they DID out turn 109's.

As for giving them firepower, its all in how you view it. The 30MM Mk-108 was an anti-bomber gun that spit out a lot of low velocity grenades in a general direction to hit something the size of a B-17. It was not the best anti-fighter weapon, and the MG's were not very usefull also. So, for fighter to fighter, the P-38 did have the best armament. A lot more trigger time also.

Im sure a lot of the blue boys are going to call BS, but its hard to argue with vets who really flew the darn things.

Also, there withdraw from the 8th AF had nothing to do with performance, but everything to do with pilot comfort. Since the pilot was not behind a big hot engine, it got VERY VERY cold at high alt, and a lot of pilots got frost bite on there hands and feet on long patrols. A frozen pilot is not a good pilot. Not till the L did they have a good cockpit heater, but by then it was already being replaced by much cheaper P-51's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would help give this progam more credibilty, and to fix our whines about it, is if they had a Bf109 pilot (or any 'enemy' such as Mig 15 when its in the show) giving his opinions on the matchup too.


That would turn a very good show into a fantastic show.

BTW I am not a blue boy, I fly both sides equally, which ever is down on players. I just want to see a balanced show.

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Just watched the clips. nice to see someone trying to render the dogfights with proper computer graphics that`s better than IL2 for a change.

I thought it was funny when he attacked the 109s but forgot his fuel and was going so fast he just shot past the other 2 instead! Guess mistakes are allowable as long as you recover from it.

Hope it appears on British Tv so i can give it a proper watch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is on British TV mate.

I think its on the History channel now. Its basically the very same show, and same dialogue, but with a Limey narrator rather than a Yank

faustnik
08-30-2007, 01:03 PM
Is in HD in the UK too? Love the HD. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RamsteinUSA
08-30-2007, 01:57 PM
if you would like to re-create the Isreal Dogfights... over at Thirdwire http://www.thirdwire.com you can get Strike Fighters, and get and Mid-East addon pack at
http://combatace.com

you can then fly the same planes and missions,, or close to the same planes... with the Mid-East scenery... same with Korea...

Just a thought... though it's hard to set it up witht he AI planes,, would be great fun with a few live pilots..
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

note: get it in a Bargain bin

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
yeah, it's a bit cartoonish sometimes, but most of hte time they do a great job of telling the story of air combat. I keep seeing stuff I never heard of happening, as well as seeing stories fleshed out that I've read about since I was a kid.

The ones about the Isreali Air Force are my favorites, as they detail combats that have had little published about them, and are narrated by the aces whose names were kept secret for decades.

All those episodes are excellent though. I don't believe they are strictly trying to make the US look good at anyone's expense, as they have other nation's pilot's exploits as well.

I'm glad they were able to get Olds' story before he left us.

And the P-38 was extremely manuverable if you knew how to use it, like differential throttle.
4 of our top 10 aces scored most of their kills in it, including our two top ones flying against the most manuverable fighters in the world.

The Zeke's roll rate is kinda slow to initially. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Is in HD in the UK too? Love the HD. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the 'HD' Faustnik?

faustnik
08-30-2007, 02:06 PM
High definition.

Xiolablu3
08-30-2007, 02:26 PM
AHhh, I am not sure TBH.

M_Gunz
08-30-2007, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm, I got ANOTHER bone to pick with that damn program.

I happened to see another episode which had P38 vs Bf109.

That would be fine, except when it came to the matchup of the two plane, it went on about how powerful the 30mm cannon was on the Bf109 and TOLD US how the P38 had just a single 20mm.

Then it went and gave best firepower to the P38!

Also it gave manouvrability to the P38 too, even with its incredibly poor roll rate, hmmm.

DOnt get me wrong - I love the show, but sometimes I think it forgoes the history, in order to keep US morale high, and this really annoys me because rather than being a very good show, it could be a fantastic show.

I found it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but what you FAIL to realize through those blue tinted glasses of yours is that this was ROBIN F*CKING OLDS & B.E. Holister. Robin Olds being one of the greatest fighter pilots to ever put @ss to aircraft seat. and not some ho hum just got in theater greenie. This man was a killer. plain & simple. and I'd have given a damn sensa with a sling shot the edge in that fight given that Robin was the pilot and they had they same set up.
But keep in mind the source as well. this the History channel and not the WWII Aviation Enthusiast Channel. the don't get, & haven't researched the countless hours we have here on the subject. they don't understand the Complexities of a P-38's tighter turn Vs the 109's Greater roll. the don't go into that much detail WHY? Because the AVERAGE VIEWER wont get it. while we fully understand here in our community the finest details...poor Joe Blow in Hoboken, New Jersey sitting his fat @ss in a recliner drinking a PBR and munching on Cheeto's wont have a f-ing clue. So they have to break it down and keep it simple.

as for the firepower edge...IMHO its a fair match. 4' 50's & a 20mm is a fair match up vs the 109's of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So somebody paid for clips of <span class="ev_code_RED">ROBIN F*CKING OLDS & B.E. Holister</span> and through the
magic of editing and adding their own BS the P-38 has only a 20mm that beats the Mk108, etc.

We get Joe Blow and his kids showing up and making claims based on shows like that and of
course near-comic-book stories they've read.

Well at least you have an idea of what they were aiming for with the target audience.
History Channel might team up with Osprey writers to raise up a notch or two but that's all.

MrMojok
08-31-2007, 08:13 AM
As far as accuracy of pilot testimony, feast your eyes on this. Just this morning, I was flipping through my copy of THIS BOOK (http://www.amazon.com/Reach-Fighter-Command-Osprey-Aircraft/dp/1855329077), and near the end came to a piece of correspondence that was written by a guy who had commanded Mustang units. Anyway, his letter is a series of tips to another officer:

"The P-51 and Me 109 seem to be about on par for dive and low altitude speed. The P-51 will out-turn the Me 109 at any altitude up to 25,000 feet (performance above that altitude is unknown). Greater difficulty is encountered in out-turning the Fw 190."

That's an excerpt from a letter written by Lt Col Everett W. Stewart, Executive Officer, 355th FG.

M_Gunz
08-31-2007, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
"The P-51 and Me 109 seem to be about on par for dive and low altitude speed. The P-51 will out-turn the Me 109 at any altitude up to 25,000 feet (performance above that altitude is unknown). Greater difficulty is encountered in out-turning the Fw 190."

That's an excerpt from a letter written by Lt Col Everett W. Stewart, Executive Officer, 355th FG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since he doesn't say the speeds at which this out-turning is done it is not safe to assume it
means at any and every.

horseback
08-31-2007, 09:29 AM
There are a couple of perception issues here.

One is the perception that if an aircraft is portrayed in the Il-2 Sturmovik game, that it is portrayed accurately versus the other aircraft in the game. This is simply stupid. While the game's developers have made a good faith effort, there is a variation of as much as 15% from real world performance on some types in either direction, in some matchups leading to a disparity of 30%, which can hardly be considered 'realistic'.

In this game, the P-38 seems to me to be particularly hamstrung compared to its contemporaries in performance, controller (single throttle) use, convergence modeling (those four fifties were always at convergence by any practical definition) and field of view (I accept that the booms and wings blocked views to the sides and below, but the exaggorated canopy framing is precisely at eye level to both sides, leaving you effectively blind everywhere but straight ahead and straight up, when the real thing was hailed for the pilot's field of view when it was introduced-it is another order of magnitude worse than the FW 190's FOV porking).

The second is the belief that if an aircraft type was technically capable of something, its real-life pilots were aware of its advantages over a given enemy type, and consistantly exploited them. Again, dead wrong. Enemy aircraft performance figures and capabilities were imperfectly understood at best until after the war, and even today, we can debate whether 'factory numbers' translated into real world performance, given the relative abilities to service and repair of the combatant air forces, the availability of lubricants, spare parts, and so on.

In practice, pilots who flew the P-38 in the ETO universally believed that they could usually out turn and out climb the Me 109 over Europe. The combat reports are all saying the same things again and again, and one can only assume that either the USAAF misled all these people, or that the pilot reports are telling us what the pilots actually experienced.

If we can agree that the vast majority of air to air victories were achieved with an ambush wherein the victim never knew what hit him, then we have to agree that there were very few air combats of maneuver in which both combatants were aware of each other and tried to gain the advantage by actually entering a classic dogfight.

If the P-38 couldn't actually out turn the 109, but pilots' reports tell us that they did, we can only come to the conclusion that the 109 pilots weren't trying to turn with the Lightning or weren't aware that they could.

There's also a matter of combat philosophy. In the West, it appears to me that most LW fighter pilots were very committed to the zoom and boom tactic, almost to the exclusion of attempting the horizontal turn. Americans were committed to chasing the enemy down and destroying his aircraft by whatever means, to the point of going over heavily defended airfields to strafe parked planes.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if trying to outturn an American fighter never even occured to most of the 109 pilots that the P-38 drivers "outturned".

cheers

horseback

SeaFireLIV
08-31-2007, 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 horseback:


The second is the belief that if an aircraft type was technically capable of something, its real-life pilots were aware of its advantages over a given enemy type, and consistantly exploited them. Again, dead wrong. Enemy aircraft performance figures and capabilities were imperfectly understood at best until after the war, and even today, we can debate whether 'factory numbers' translated into real world performance, given the relative abilities to service and repair of the combatant air forces, the availability of lubricants, spare parts, and so on.

In practice, pilots who flew the P-38 in the ETO universally believed that they could usually out turn and out climb the Me 109 over Europe. The combat reports are all saying the same things again and again, and one can only assume that either the USAAF misled all these people, or that the pilot reports are telling us what the pilots actually experienced.

If the P-38 couldn't actually out turn the 109, but pilots' reports tell us that they did, we can only come to the conclusion that the 109 pilots weren't trying to turn with the Lightning or weren't aware that they could.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your post is really on the ball, as usual, and this is what most forum goers completely miss.

People here tend to analyse aircraft with a toothpick going over tiny specs to the nth degree in a very gamey way similar to players who do D&D role playing games and always think that WWII pilots did the same.

Just like they pick over a fantasy sword in a RP game and say this does 50+ D6 dice + 10 fire damage on a sunny day in a -2 wind while eating +5 beans grown in Vatania, so, too they expect this kind of anal analysis from real fighter pilots in WWII...

In accounts I`ve read (mostly of Russian pilots) you`ll the pilot saying, `I shot down X plane at Y thousand feet while out-turning it with Z plane`, and the interviewer will say, `But we know from factory specs that Z plane can`t do that at Y thousand feet!`

And the pilot will simply, `That`s what I did. I don`t care what your `specs` say!`

The pilot just did what he could with his plane, but few pilots, especially in the urgent throes of war went through knee deep sspecs, comparing every little bit of spec on his plane and the enemy plane details. that was for the science boffs.

And with my fantasy example, I`d bet that a paladin with a 10+ sword that did extra fire damage wouldn`t know it. He`d just be glad that things happen to burn when he hit it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

crucislancer
08-31-2007, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Your post is really on the ball, as usual, and this is what most forum goers completely miss.

People here tend to analyse aircraft with a toothpick going over tiny specs to the nth degree in a very gamey way similar to players who do D&D role playing games and always think that WWII pilots did the same.

Just like they pick over a fantasy sword in a RP game and say this does 50+ D6 dice + 10 fire damage on a sunny day in a -2 wind while eating +5 beans grown in Vatania, so, too they expect this kind of anal analysis from real fighter pilots in WWII...

In accounts I`ve read (mostly of Russian pilots) you`ll the pilot saying, `I shot down X plane at Y thousand feet while out-turning it with Z plane`, and the interviewer will say, `But we know from factory specs that Z plane can`t do that at Y thousand feet!`

And the pilot will simply, `That`s what I did. I don`t care what your `specs` say!`

The pilot just did what he could with his plane, but few pilots, especially in the urgent throes of war went through knee deep sspecs, comparing every little bit of spec on his plane and the enemy plane details. that was for the science boffs.

And with my fantasy example, I`d bet that a paladin with a 10+ sword that did extra fire damage wouldn`t know it. He`d just be glad that things happen to burn when he hit it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. Kudos to Horseback for the great post.

And, as a D&D player, so very true, Seafire. The group I used to game with did really well avoiding that kind of thing. The players who spend too much time on the math lose the meaning of the game, and I think that applies here as well.

There is always going to be exceptions to the rule, particularly when it comes to something like air combat.

Speaking of Dogfights, I saw a great WWI episode on Comcast's On Demand service last night.

Gibbage1
08-31-2007, 12:36 PM
My problem with the "Maybe the 109 pilots didnt try" stuff is, if your being shot at, wouldent you try everything in your power to get out of his gunsight?

One of the P-38 vets I spoke with had 3 109's dive down on him in the MTO when he was alone (broke from the pack with engine problems). He dove away from them. Now, all pilots know you dont dive in a P-38! Prodding him about this, he said "we had ways of pulling up". 1 way was to pop 1 notch of flaps, and that would pull you up. Another, was to give 1 pump on your manual gear lower pump. That would crack the doors of rear landing gear wells, and that would return elivator controle like the later dive flaps. (You learn so much from talking with these vets!!!). A B-29 bomber pilot who was also talking with the P-38 pilot asked "wouldent that damage the flaps or wheel well over 400MPH" and I cant remember the P-38 pilots exact response, but it was something like "Its better I damage my aircraft then they damage my aircraft!". The B-29 pilot also asked "Did that work?" and the P-38 pilot said "Im here, aint I?". He also had the P-38 firewalled running 83" boost, in an early E-model. On paper, the early E-model was "restricted" to only 54" of boost. Like I said, when you have your life on the line, you do anything to save it. This man is alive today because he DID NOT fallow the rules and restrictions. The mecanics were a bit pissed since they had to replace both engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
08-31-2007, 01:24 PM
This whole plane x out turned plane y is so overrated. There are too many variables that we skip while reading ww2 reports.
Be it comparative tests or plain pilot combat reports.

The problem I have with pilot accounts is that you don't get the entire picture to make a conclusion how that particular plane did against the other plane. You never know everything that was in play at that particular time with both planes and both pilots. You get just three four factors out of two dozens and want to draw a definitive conclusion based on that. It can't be done.

I think that most WW2 fighters were able to outturn another type of fighter under certain conditions, or make it apers that they did.
A slow heavy plane may outturn the more nimble plane that is too fast.
On plane could outturn another at some altitude and throttle settings while not be able to do it at other settings.
A tired pilot may not be able to compete with the strong rested well fed guy he's up against.
Pilot skill and experience is the biggest factor that most people don't take into account.
Some time ago i read an interview with a Russian instructor combat pilot in WW2. He was teaching some students combat tactics. he was flying P-39 and the rookies were flying yak 1B or Yak7. Of course he out turned them with ease. And he said he would have out turned them if they would switch planes just as well.
Just like those contradictory Russian reports of the FW-190's.
Some pilots claimed that the "190's were shot on site". others were telling stories how they would "go around and around in circles" with them and in many occasions they would lose a turn fight to the 190.

This things are a lot more complicated that just X plane outturns Y plane.

I think the more scientific and detailed a report is made, the more you can find out about the actual planes.

Korolov1986
08-31-2007, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My problem with the "Maybe the 109 pilots didnt try" stuff is, if your being shot at, wouldent you try everything in your power to get out of his gunsight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trying everything you can with that power does not constitute knowing how to use it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
08-31-2007, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
This things are a lot more complicated that just X plane outturns Y plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're missing the point. It's more fun to say, "My favorite pawns all 'cause this guys said so". Didn't you go to 3rd grade???

horseback
08-31-2007, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My problem with the "Maybe the 109 pilots didnt try" stuff is, if your being shot at, wouldent you try everything in your power to get out of his gunsight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The sticky part of that assumption is that if the first thing you try doesn't work and the other fellow pulls the trigger, all other options become theoretical, particularly under 4x.50 + 1x20mm all less than 20 inches apart.

No WWII fighter pilot was under any illusions about the destructive power of the P-38's concentrated armament. That privilege was left for certain members of this forum.

An extended turning fight sets you up for all those other silver airplanes, so I imagine that only one set of tactics occured to 90% of the guys flying Reich Defense before they got taken off the board...

cheers

horseback

faustnik
08-31-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
He also had the P-38 firewalled running 83" boost, in an early E-model. On paper, the early E-model was "restricted" to only 54" of boost. Like I said, when you have your life on the line, you do anything to save it. This man is alive today because he DID NOT fallow the rules and restrictions. The mecanics were a bit pissed since they had to replace both engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes no sense for the mechanics to get mad. They had to set the mechanical linkage to run the boost that high. It's not like the pilot sets the limits.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-31-2007, 03:19 PM
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. The critics will be happy to know that they rated the FW superior in everything but speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although climb rate was not mentioned. But this is probably just more US propaganda...right?

S!

faustnik
08-31-2007, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. The critics will be happy to know that they rated the FW superior in everything but speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although climb rate was not mentioned. But this is probably just more US propaganda...right?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can Fw190 be rated higher than the P-51 in all catagories? How about range, performance over 20,000 feet, dive speed?

Where do they get this stuff?

R_Target
08-31-2007, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I saw that too. That was the second best depiction I've yet seen on Dogfights.

leitmotiv
08-31-2007, 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 faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. The critics will be happy to know that they rated the FW superior in everything but speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although climb rate was not mentioned. But this is probably just more US propaganda...right?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can Fw190 be rated higher than the P-51 in all catagories? How about range, performance over 20,000 feet, dive speed?

Where do they get this stuff? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incomprehensible!!!!

crucislancer
08-31-2007, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I saw that too. That was the second best depiction I've yet seen on Dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the first?

Sadly I missed the first part of last night's episode. Hopefully it will be on On Demand soon.

The best depiction I've seen so far, and my favorite, was the Bud Anderson segment in the pilot episode. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, the next episode on November 13th (not sure why they don't have one on the 6th):

10-11pm -- Dogfights - Night Fighters
In pitch-black skies, brave pilots put their lives on the line in an
effort to gain the ultimate advantage...the ability to attack, kill,
and withdraw without ever being detected. It's a risky mission that
depends heavily on technology. Night fighters pioneer the tactics and
technology and pave the way for the future of air combat. Famous
battles are recreated using state-of-the-art computer graphics.

berg417448
08-31-2007, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

Definately! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can Fw190 be rated higher than the P-51 in all catagories? How about range, performance over 20,000 feet, dive speed?

Where do they get this stuff? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They only rated the two planes in 4 categories. Range, performance over 20,000 feet, and dive speed were not among those 4 categories.


They did manage to screw up the FW-190 armament by saying 30mm instead of 20mm cannon and they also said the P-51 had a Rolls Royce Merlin instead of a Packard built Merlin.

I thought that it was interesting that the P-51 pilot didn't realize he was actually fighting two Fw-190s instead of just one at first. He thought the guy was making some incredible maneuvers!

faustnik
08-31-2007, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
They only rated the two planes in 4 categories. Range, performance over 20,000 feet, and dive speed were not among those 4 categories. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, firepower, roll rate....ummm, where else did the Fw190 win, paintschemes and automatic devices? Just curious, and actually wondering how they come up with it.

berg417448
08-31-2007, 05:42 PM
Fw-190 won Firepower, Maneuverability
Mustang won speed
They tied on rearward visibility

faustnik
08-31-2007, 05:44 PM
Interesting, thanks Berg. I guess they were just thinking "dogfight" not combat capability.

MrMojok
08-31-2007, 07:37 PM
I didn't post the quote from my book to say I think the P-51's turn rate should be increased in this game. I posted it to show how ludicrous it would be for me to demand that based on the quote.

I've got a whole shelf full of books. I can produce quotes from LW pilots who say there is no way the P-51 would ever out-turn a 109. I can produce a quote to "prove" anything I want, just as you all can.

weaselwagon1
08-31-2007, 08:09 PM
Michael Savage is an idiot.

MrMojok
08-31-2007, 08:18 PM
Well h3ll's bells. I must have been working during the last episode, and I don't see it listed for rebroadcast in the next few days.

What was the story with the P-51 episode? Who was the pilot? And how was it?

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-31-2007, 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 faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
They only rated the two planes in 4 categories. Range, performance over 20,000 feet, and dive speed were not among those 4 categories. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, firepower, roll rate....ummm, where else did the Fw190 win, paintschemes and automatic devices? Just curious, and actually wondering how they come up with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maneuverability

berg417448
08-31-2007, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Well h3ll's bells. I must have been working during the last episode, and I don't see it listed for rebroadcast in the next few days.

What was the story with the P-51 episode? Who was the pilot? And how was it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The episode was:

Dogfights : No Room for Error


I can't remember the P-51 pilots name right now.

MrMojok
08-31-2007, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
They only rated the two planes in 4 categories. Range, performance over 20,000 feet, and dive speed were not among those 4 categories. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, firepower, roll rate....ummm, where else did the Fw190 win, paintschemes and automatic devices? Just curious, and actually wondering how they come up with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maneuverability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That just furthur validates the quote from the book I posted up above, Havok http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

R_Target
08-31-2007, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
What was the first? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The entire F6F episode, natch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also hope they do a VF-17 episode someday. Especially if it involves the Rabaul raid where VF-17 pilots made the first (flawless) combat carrier landings in their "banned" Corsairs.

Some of the late-war engagements over Japan would be excellent material too. 343 Kokutai in particular gave as good as they got in several actions.

In other words, more USN/IJN would make me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Ob.Emann
08-31-2007, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Michael Savage is an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but make that "Michael Alan Weiner is an idiot". Even Savage's own name is a lie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

crucislancer
08-31-2007, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
What was the first? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The entire F6F episode, natch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also hope they do a VF-17 episode someday. Especially if it involves the Rabaul raid where VF-17 pilots made the first (flawless) combat carrier landings in their "banned" Corsairs.

Some of the late-war engagements over Japan would be excellent material too. 343 Kokutai in particular gave as good as they got in several actions.

In other words, more USN/IJN would make me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that was a great episode.

A VF-17 episode would be awesome. Maybe throw in some VMF-214 stuff for good measure. The only Corsair stuff I remember was from the season 2 premiere. t

CzechTexan
08-31-2007, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Michael Savage is an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Savage is a very patriotic American who cares about the future of this country and he wants things done the right way--on the foundations of which this country was built. His theme is Borders, Language, Culture. Savage is a wise and learned man with two PH-Ds from a major university. He also has news stories that are swept under the rug by the mainstream media. No one even mentions his name because they know what a threat he could be to the liberal establishment.

Millions of Americans listen to and agree with Michael Savage. If you are a conservative then you will understand what he is about. He also has followers of every race, religion, and creed because they understand what is going on with this country. He is tough and says things like it is. He doesn't try to please everyone all of the time like politicians or other people in the media.

Savage topics that come to my mind:
*He has vigorously defended Marines put on trial for doing their job; given money for their defense; helped raise millions of dollars for their defense. Who else has done that?

*He defended the Duke Lacrosse team members who were wrongly accused of rape. It seemed everyone else automatically accused them of being guilty but as it turned out it was all a crooked deal involving local politics.

*He asks why the media doesn't cover the New York case where three Black college students were lined up and assassinated by Hipanics(at least one being an illegal alien).

*He asks why didn't the media cover the Tennesse case where a white couple was raped, tortured, murdered, and dismembered by Blacks and shouldn't this be a "hate crime?"

*Most recently, the city of San Francisco tried to get him fired but didn't because of the vote of one Chinese-American who defended Savage's right to free speech. This issue was as big as the Imus incident but no one in the media touched it or even mentioned the name Michael Savage and his fight for freedom of speech.

To me, it seems proper and fitting that a man of Chinese descent, who understands oppression and communistic ideas, would defend a man's right to freedom of speech against a heavy-handed government that is trying to take that right away.

Savage attacks liberalism and Islamo-Fascism like no other person. These are the main reasons IMO why so many common-sensical people like him and understand him.
He is the leader and voice of the average American (whether you believe it or not)...Voices which are not being listened to because we have no leadership.

Copperhead311th
08-31-2007, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CzechTexan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Michael Savage is an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Savage is a very patriotic American who cares about the future of this country and he wants things done the right way--on the foundations of which this country was built. His theme is Borders, Language, Culture. Savage is a wise and learned man with two PH-Ds from a major university. He also has news stories that are swept under the rug by the mainstream media. No one even mentions his name because they know what a threat he could be to the liberal establishment.

Millions of Americans listen to and agree with Michael Savage. If you are a conservative then you will understand what he is about. He also has followers of every race, religion, and creed because they understand what is going on with this country. He is tough and says things like it is. He doesn't try to please everyone all of the time like politicians or other people in the media.

Savage topics that come to my mind:
*He has vigorously defended Marines put on trial for doing their job; given money for their defense; helped raise millions of dollars for their defense. Who else has done that?

*He defended the Duke Lacrosse team members who were wrongly accused of rape. It seemed everyone else automatically accused them of being guilty but as it turned out it was all a crooked deal involving local politics.

*He asks why the media doesn't cover the New York case where three Black college students were lined up and assassinated by Hipanics(at least one being an illegal alien).

*He asks why didn't the media cover the Tennesse case where a white couple was raped, tortured, murdered, and dismembered by Blacks and shouldn't this be a "hate crime?"

*Most recently, the city of San Francisco tried to get him fired but didn't because of the vote of one Chinese-American who defended Savage's right to free speech. This issue was as big as the Imus incident but no one in the media touched it or even mentioned the name Michael Savage and his fight for freedom of speech.

To me, it seems proper and fitting that a man of Chinese descent, who understands oppression and communistic ideas, would defend a man's right to freedom of speech against a heavy-handed government that is trying to take that right away.

Savage attacks liberalism and Islamo-Fascism like no other person. These are the main reasons IMO why so many common-sensical people like him and understand him.
He is the leader and voice of the average American (whether you believe it or not)...Voices which are not being listened to because we have no leadership. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry but you can take all those fat cat useless Right wing neo conseratives....lock them all in a stadium
with those worthless self indulgent, good for nothing liberals..... give em all hand granades and deasil fuel..and strike a match.

that's the only way to make this country great again.

Get rid of ervery single republican abd every single democrat (preferably painfully)and for bid party formations out right. while we're at it dump the f*^%ing electorial collage as well and bring back the popular vote.

And any politicain found breaking those laws or misusing the taxpayers money will be shot on the spot.
that'd be a start io my book. and savage IS an idiot. boy just when i thought rush limbaugh and thise j@ckasses on Air America were the dumbest ppl on the radio along come another schmuck to show me how wrong i am on that idea.

CzechTexan
09-01-2007, 12:39 AM
copperhead, I believe Savage would agree with you on most of what you said. He is not a Democrat nor Republican but he is an independent who also thinks there should be changes in the political system.

If you are a real conservative with traditional values then you would probably have a lot in common with him. Which side are you on? If you are a liberal socialist with communist dreams then of course you'll say he's an idiot.

If you have listened to him then you will know he is government watchdog. He points out negative things on both Democrats and Republicans...things that I don't see covered by the mainstream media.

He's the one who made a big issue about the government selling our ports to Dubai-Arab Emirates...He's the one who was a major player in getting people to contact politicians so that they would not pass the illegal-alien-amnesty bill. You can thank Savage for at least those two issues which have helped to save this country.

I just don't understand why you say he's an idiot??? Why is he an idiot? What do you disagree with him on?


When I started this forum discussion I didn't intend for it to turn in to a political debate or an off-topic change-the-subject debate on how well planes are modelled. All I wanted to do was to say that these History TV shows are good for young kids to watch. It builds a sense of pride and patriotism and manliness. I don't want the kids of this country turned into a bunch of pansies who won't fight for their country. Michael Savage sees it the same way and that's why he acknowledged the Dogfights on his show.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 02:17 AM
I wouldnt bother, mate...

Hes just one of those people who thinks they know it all and that spews a bunch of cr*p out of his mouth, criticises everything, without actually having any worthy answers.

I know a few of them around here, I generally 'duck and cover' when I pass them on the street. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

EDIT : I am talking about Copperhead, not Savage... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. The critics will be happy to know that they rated the FW superior in everything but speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although climb rate was not mentioned. But this is probably just more US propaganda...right?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah that sounds about right to me, for the catagories they mentioned. Even some versions of the FW190 were faster at low altitudes werent they?? AT high alts P51 won out easily in speed. I belive the Fw190's power rapidly fell of at high altitudes, whereas Merlin powered planes were still increasing.

SOunds like a good general comparison.

Unlike the Me109 with 30mm cannon losing in manouvrability and firepower to the P38.

Lets Compare Bf109 and SPitfire, now most people would say that the SPitfire was a bit more manouvrable than the Bf109, but it was quite close.

SO lets compare the P38 and the SPitfire, is anyone really suggesting that the P38 was as manouvrable as a Spitfire? WHich is would basically have to be if it was going to beat the Bf109 in manouvrability, in a general sense.

We know from the FW190 that Manouvrability is certainly not just about turning circles, so just because the P38 may be able to outturn the Bf109 in some circumstances, how about roll rate and such? Bf109 wins hands down as the P38 has a very poor roll rate.

I cannot see how any unbiased person could give Manverability to the P38J over the Bf109G.

MrMojok
09-01-2007, 03:04 AM
Elegantly stated, as always, Copperhead.

No, really, could you go back and edit that tell and **** it up even more?

Blutarski2004
09-01-2007, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I just watched an episode last night with the P-51 vs FW-190. The critics will be happy to know that they rated the FW superior in everything but speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although climb rate was not mentioned. But this is probably just more US propaganda...right?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah that sounds about right to me, for the catagories they mentioned. Even some versions of the FW190 were faster at low altitudes werent they?? AT high alts P51 won out easily in speed. I belive the Fw190's power rapidly fell of at high altitudes, whereas Merlin powered planes were still increasing.

SOunds like a good general comparison.

Unlike the Me109 with 30mm cannon losing in manouvrability and firepower to the P38.

Lets Compare Bf109 and SPitfire, now most people would say that the SPitfire was a bit more manouvrable than the Bf109, but it was quite close.

SO lets compare the P38 and the SPitfire, is anyone really suggesting that the P38 was as manouvrable as a Spitfire? WHich is would basically have to be if it was going to beat the Bf109 in manouvrability, in a general sense.

We know from the FW190 that Manouvrability is certainly not just about turning circles, so just because the P38 may be able to outturn the Bf109 in some circumstances, how about roll rate and such? Bf109 wins hands down as the P38 has a very poor roll rate.

I cannot see how any unbiased person could give Manverability to the P38J over the Bf109G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The wild card in this question is what unique performance capabilities were conferred to a properly trained pilot by the P38's twin engines. I agree re slow rate of roll, but its torque-free power and ability to use assymmetrical throttle settings to rotate about its vertical yaw axis change the conventional equation, especially at low speeds.

Also, the P38 was known to have very powerful elevator authority which enabled it to maneuver quite well in the vertical.

So far as I know, only one P38 Group (the one committed to Tunisia) had pilots who had been properly trained on P38s. And their training was, IIRC, assisted by Lockheed personnel. All the others were manned by pilots who gone through the standard s.e. training program only. It has been a pet theory of mine that this difference in training accounted for the confusing differences in reported P38 flight performance.

I'm not willing to come down definitively either way on this question of P38 versus 109G maneuverability: insufficient data. But I do believe that the issue is a good deal more complicated than we might think.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 03:46 AM
But look at that abysmal roll rate. That would hinder the manouverability massivley.

Just like I dont believe that the Bf110 or Mosquito could compare with the top single engined fighters in manouverability, nor do I believe the P38 could.

Sure it could shoot some nemy planes down, just like the Me110 or the Mossie, but when it came to a one on one dogfight between the Bf109G and the P38J, I am SURE the Bf109G would come out on top with equal pilots.

Me110's were good manouverable fighters, but when they came up against Hurricanes (a plane with average performce for that time) they were decimated.

Why should the P38 with its equally poor roll rate, do so much better versus one of the top single engined fighters of the day, the Bf109G?

The Mosquito was held in extrememly high regard, yet it doesnt stand a chance against the Bf109 or the FWS190. Its about the same size, has an even better record than the P38, is the game Mossie then very very undermoddelled? How about the Beaufighter? That things a pig in the game vs fighters.

WHy does the P38 get the 'special treatment' as far as twin engined planes go? Even when the roll rate is as bad as the other twin engined planes and the armament far far worse? (most twin engined planes had 2 or 4x20mm cannon and 4mg's)


I just cannot believe that the P38 is the ONLY twin engined plane in the world which is as manouerable as single engined fighters. Either some of them are, or none of them are, and IMO at the moment (from reading reports/docs/tests) I believe none of them are.

Korolov1986
09-01-2007, 09:28 AM
Xiolablu, I think you're missing the point. You can't always trust the absolute hard statistical values everybody claims for aircraft.

For example, as you said, the roll rate on the P-38 was abysmal - however, if the pilot was skilled enough of the P-38, then he could potentially use the throttles to swing the aircraft around faster. AFAIK, there's no chart out there that says how fast the roll rate is when you use the aircraft's engine arrangement to roll it.

I honestly don't believe that - on a strict basis - the P-38 would out maneuver all but a select few single engined fighters. However, I do believe that the P-38 could out-stall and out-torque most of these aircraft. Of course, being able to do any of those things hinges on the pilot's ability to use them. It wasn't like a Spitfire, where you just got in and flew; it could kill you quite easily the first time you flew it. But once you became experienced enough in the aircraft (as with any other), you could become unbeatable in the P-38.

As for the P-38 getting special treatment, I think that comes down to popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mossie, Beaufighter, and Me-110 were not strictly designed as interceptors from the outset. That makes the P-38 seem as if it were the 'only' true twin engine fighter to hit the skies in WW2.

AKA_TAGERT
09-01-2007, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CzechTexan:
copperhead, I believe Savage would agree with you on most of what you said. He is not a Democrat nor Republican but he is an independent who also thinks there should be changes in the political system.

If you are a real conservative with traditional values then you would probably have a lot in common with him. Which side are you on? If you are a liberal socialist with communist dreams then of course you'll say he's an idiot.

If you have listened to him then you will know he is government watchdog. He points out negative things on both Democrats and Republicans...things that I don't see covered by the mainstream media.

He's the one who made a big issue about the government selling our ports to Dubai-Arab Emirates...He's the one who was a major player in getting people to contact politicians so that they would not pass the illegal-alien-amnesty bill. You can thank Savage for at least those two issues which have helped to save this country.

I just don't understand why you say he's an idiot??? Why is he an idiot? What do you disagree with him on?


When I started this forum discussion I didn't intend for it to turn in to a political debate or an off-topic change-the-subject debate on how well planes are modelled. All I wanted to do was to say that these History TV shows are good for young kids to watch. It builds a sense of pride and patriotism and manliness. I don't want the kids of this country turned into a bunch of pansies who won't fight for their country. Michael Savage sees it the same way and that's why he acknowledged the Dogfights on his show. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

What this country needs is more savage minded people IMHO.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Xiolablu, I think you're missing the point. You can't always trust the absolute hard statistical values everybody claims for aircraft.

For example, as you said, the roll rate on the P-38 was abysmal - however, if the pilot was skilled enough of the P-38, then he could potentially use the throttles to swing the aircraft around faster. AFAIK, there's no chart out there that says how fast the roll rate is when you use the aircraft's engine arrangement to roll it.

I honestly don't believe that - on a strict basis - the P-38 would out maneuver all but a select few single engined fighters. However, I do believe that the P-38 could out-stall and out-torque most of these aircraft. Of course, being able to do any of those things hinges on the pilot's ability to use them. It wasn't like a Spitfire, where you just got in and flew; it could kill you quite easily the first time you flew it. But once you became experienced enough in the aircraft (as with any other), you could become unbeatable in the P-38.

As for the P-38 getting special treatment, I think that comes down to popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mossie, Beaufighter, and Me-110 were not strictly designed as interceptors from the outset. That makes the P-38 seem as if it were the 'only' true twin engine fighter to hit the skies in WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good points.

Please note that I wrote 'at the moment I believe..' as in its only my opinion and it is always open to change if the weight of evidence is there.

AT moment however, I just cannot see the P38J winning out in manouverability over the Bf109G, as in talking about 'close in dogfighting' with equal pilots.

I understand that the P38 may have been a better fighter than the Me110/Beaufighter/Mosquito etc. It may even have been the best twin engined plane in the world at that time. But I cant believe that the USA were so absolutely superior at making twin engined planes that they totally blew every other country in the worlds twin engined planes out of the water and also was more manouverable than the Bf109.

Has anyone got any reports of other twin engined fighters, which were similar to the p38? such as the whirlwind? (Can't think of any more twin engined fighters/fighter/bombers). Maybe if I could see some other twins competing favourably in manouverability with single engined fighters, I might tend to believe that twins could compete.

horseback
09-01-2007, 10:38 AM
I have some quotes from German experten, including Steinhoff, that indicate that the P-38, even in its earliest combat versions, was a huge shock to them, especially in its ability to turn and its instantaneous climb, all due to that massive elevator and minimal torque.

Xio, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the P-38 was the only WWII twin engined fighter with props that spun in opposite directions.</span> Almost every very other fighter twin had to fight twice as much torque going in one direction with considerably less rudder surface (the only exception being the twin tailed 110, which was overloaded with a rear gunner and all his equipment, + the torque thing). AFAIK, among contemporary twin engine fighters, only the Whirlwind was also a single seater.

For a fighter developed in the late thirties, the Lightning had phenomenal speed and climb, and because Congress had decreed that all US fighters would have only internal fuel, it had a thick, low speed wing profile that was more efficient at lower, dogfighting speeds.

As for the Mossie, all I can point to is the fact that the Mossie was not designed as a day fighter, and it was carrying around an internal bomb bay and an extra crewman. Its record, however good in the 'all-around' category, does not measure up as a day fighter vs single seaters. Its power to weight ratio was not in the same class in spite of the Merlin's inherent superiority. The Beaufighter was also hobbled by an unnecessary crewman in its day versions, and hardly would have had the speed to be considered a fighter, even without him.

The 109 may have been able to outroll and out turn the P-38 to the left, but it was an entirely different proposition when the P-38 rolled and turned right, where the 109 driver had to fight his engine's torque. The skilled P-38 pilot could use the twin throttle controls to use his own engines' torque to assist him in a roll & turn in either direction by increasing torque on one side. Honors would be pretty close to even there, and the 109 pilot would have to be trying his best (IMHO, there's a big surprise factor to any combat with a P-38, and I imagine it was often decisive).

P-38 drivers over N. Africa were very fond of a climbing right hand turn, because the Germans had a terrible time following it, and rarely tried. Their doctrine called for a quick hit and a withdrawal to a safe distance before following up, so they would bounce from above, and roll left and continue down before zooming back up. With any luck at all, they would lose the P-38 or his buddies.

Bouncing from below and then continuing up was considered a risky choice, because the P-38 could take tremendous punishment and still pop its nose up and hose you down before you could open up the range. Even if you nailed your target, there was still usually a wingman to worry about.

By 1942-3 standards, its nose armament was considered to be extremely powerful, certainly more so than the 20mm/2x7.9mm of the 109F/G. It still had a formidible bite by the end of the war.

Again, just those four fifties tightly packed together like that gave the P-38 almost perfect convergence from zero to well beyond any wing mounted armament's practical range, and could tear big chunks of your aluminum skinning off.

This would be a Bad Thing, because the 'stressed' skin of an aircraft contributed a great deal to its structural strength in real life; we tend to overlook that fact here, because it isn't really part of the game's damage modelling. In real life, though, it led to many destroyed a/c.

And then there's its speed. The P-38 was fast, with outstanding acceleration. It could run almost any opponent down over N. Africa or Italy, especially below 20,000 ft, where there were no compression problems to worry about.

As a target, the P-38 offers some problems. Because of its size, it would be difficult to judge when it was in range, and a lot of that size was empty space. The P-38, like most American fighters, was much more heavily stressed than European fighters, and could take more punishment without losing combat effectiveness. There were several P-38s that collided with 109s and 190s (including one case where a tail boom was completely severed) and still returned to base (not that I endorse it as a tactic, but it does demonstrate great structural strength).

The P-38 was unique among WWII twins for a number of reasons. It had counter rotating props for minimal torque (which was a real killer for twins at the time), a crew of one, advanced streamlining for its time of design, lots of elevator & rudder surface, and stupendous climb and top speed for any aircraft designed in the late thirties and flying in the first half of the war.

Oh, yeah. It could fly a lot farther than any other single seat fighter in Europe, so it could almost literally show up anywhere when you least desired it, kick butt, outrun your fighters to the limits of their endurance, and still make it home.

On the other hand, it was difficult to master, taking twice as long for its pilots to become combat effective, there was next to no cockpit heating (Lockheed's sales brochure would have said that it wasn't quite as 'user friendly' as some other fighters), the turbocharged Allisons were notoriously touchy and it was very easy to ID at long range, allowing the oppostion a better chance of avoiding it.

In addition, it was hard to mass produce, especially in the first three years of its production, 1941 through 1943.

If Lockheed had been able to produce it in the numbers needed in the first two years of the war, we would never have heard of the Mustang, and 8th AF Lightnings might well have replaced the cantankerous turbocharged Allison with the Packard Merlin.

As it was, it was usually able to compete quite well with German single seaters when the pilots flying it had thawed extremities, a little practice, and working engines.

cheers

horseback

AKA_TAGERT
09-01-2007, 10:49 AM
SPOT ON!

Agreed 100%!

That is the best P38 summary I have seen in a long time! S!

Andy_363
09-01-2007, 11:09 AM
WW1 Episode damn. Have to search for that one but yes i think too like Xioblue3 that i think too that they want to keep the morale high but of course those are amazing stories. Sometimes history channel is wrong and sometimes it seperates from real documents of events and websites all have other information.

P47 episode is my favorite http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
09-01-2007, 11:31 AM
Great post Horseback. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

joeap
09-01-2007, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
SPOT ON!

Agreed 100%!

That is the best P38 summary I have seen in a long time! S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto from me. P-38 FTW.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

If Lockheed had been able to produce it in the numbers needed in the first two years of the war, we would never have heard of the Mustang, and 8th AF Lightnings might well have replaced the cantankerous turbocharged Allison with the Packard Merlin.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good interesting post mate, but I have to point to this error! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The P51 was developed for the RAF as a replacement for the P40, so redgardless of the p38 being built in enough numbers, we would still have heard of the Mustang.

The RAF really hated the P38 versions that they got. I understand they were underpowered with no contras, but just a point.

Just another question. If 'contra-rotating props' was such a big development, why did no other twin engined fighters/fighter bombers use them? Surely De Havilland would have jumped at the chance to add this miraculous feature to the Mosquito, and Bristol to its Beaufighter, and Germany to its Me110/210/Ju88 etc if it was so revolutionary and added such amazing characteristics?

Also, How could a plane with a wing loading worse than a Fw190, with a power loading also worse, turn better than a Bf109?

You have still not convinced me on the Bf109 and P38 manouverability question, but IMO you make some good points.

R_Target
09-01-2007, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The RAF really hated the P38 versions that they got. I understand they were underpowered with no contras, but just a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF received what they ordered from Lockheed, then rejected it.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The RAF really hated the P38 versions that they got. I understand they were underpowered with no contras, but just a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF received what they ordered from Lockheed, then rejected it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it had dangerous handling characteristics and 'redlined' at 300mph, when not using contra-rotating props and the deleted supercharger.

R_Target
09-01-2007, 02:57 PM
Some of those P-322s were used back in the U.S. for trainers. I think I have an account somewhere of what it was like to fly, I'll try to find it. Hairy stuff.

weaselwagon1
09-01-2007, 03:55 PM
Savage is a drum beating neo-con trying to push us into another war with Iran.He constantly whines about "Islamofascists" and his agenda is off the same page as the Israeli Knesset.Looks like we'll soon have another war to protect "our friend" again.

Bremspropeller
09-01-2007, 04:35 PM
LoL, a GOOD P-38 pilot could use his throttles to..

So, what if Joe 'Tiger' Ace met just another hot shot pilot from the other side that would squeeze any inch of performance out of his fighter?

stathem
09-01-2007, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Just another question. If 'contra-rotating props' was such a big development, why did no other twin engined fighters/fighter bombers use them? Surely De Havilland would have jumped at the chance to add this miraculous feature to the Mosquito, and Bristol to its Beaufighter, and Germany to its Me110/210/Ju88 etc if it was so revolutionary and added such amazing characteristics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to DH they did, the Hornet featuring opposite handed Merlins. These things take time though.

horseback
09-01-2007, 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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

If Lockheed had been able to produce it in the numbers needed in the first two years of the war, we would never have heard of the Mustang, and 8th AF Lightnings might well have replaced the cantankerous turbocharged Allison with the Packard Merlin.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good interesting post mate, but I have to point to this error! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The P51 was developed for the RAF as a replacement for the P40, so redgardless of the p38 being built in enough numbers, we would still have heard of the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You may be right there, but it would have been notable primarily as a long range, low alt recon platform, not as a long range, high alt escort fighter. It certainly would not have won the war... 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">The RAF really hated the P38 versions that they got. I understand they were underpowered with no contras, but just a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The RAF cancelled the Lockheed Model 322s they ordered before any deliveries were made. I'm halfway through Bodie's book, and he makes it clear that IF the RAF got any examples of the 'Atlanta Mk I' (and thank God that they didn't keep that name-it might have neutered the whole series), they got'em after the contract was cancelled and he believes that any British eval would be somewhat 'colored' by the acrimony which characterized the whole misunderstanding. Most of those airframes were supposedly converted to P-38G standard, if I read it correctly. Some non counter rotating examples did make their way to domestic US squadrons in the early war, but they were generally less potent and more tricky than the standard models, and were soon discarded to training commands.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just another question. If 'contra-rotating props' was such a big development, why did no other twin engined fighters/fighter bombers use them? Surely De Havilland would have jumped at the chance to add this miraculous feature to the Mosquito, and Bristol to its Beaufighter, and Germany to its Me110/210/Ju88 etc if it was so revolutionary and added such amazing characteristics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That may have been due to its advantages not being fully appreciated at the time, and the engine manufacturers being less than enthusiastic with creating a 'mirror image' set of engines. From a logistics POV, using two of the same engine is much more palatable than using two different types of engines.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, How could a plane with a wing loading worse than a Fw190, with a power loading also worse, turn better than a Bf109?

You have still not convinced me on the Bf109 and P38 manouverability question, but IMO you make some good points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My initial response to the first question, assuming that you are right about wing and power loading, is I just don't know, but with the Fowler flaps at the 20 degrees 'combat maneauver' setting and the actual weight somewhat less than the nominal combat weight due to fuel burnoff, it can get close. Wing loading is not the be-all in the equation; wing shape and profile are also factors.

Again, the surprise factor is going to be in play here; I don't have to turn tighter that you can, I just have to turn tighter than you do. Anticipation is often a factor in how hard you pull on your stick. The point is to guesstimate where the other guy will be at the end of the turn or roll, so if he turns tighter than you expect, you have problems. The fact remains that the Lightning was exceptionally nimble for its size. If I'm a good fighter pilot, all I need is for it to be close -- my ego will compensate for any shortcomings in aircraft performance.

Also, I don't know how much extra lift might be conferred by the twin boom and that big plank of an elevator, but it might be more significant than we know.

cheers

horseback

Stiletto-
09-01-2007, 05:37 PM
The saddest thing to ever happen to the P-38, is it not getting Merlin engines. Besides having more power, the Merlin engine would allow the booms to have less ducting and the plane to be quite a bit more aerodynamic. Due to the production demands of the Lightning, Lockheed was not allowed to stop assembly.

Not even for a lesser modification by adding a better Hamilton Prop found on P-47C's. This "K" model also had modified Intercoolers similar to the J model and the Allison V1710F-15 was rated at 1,875 bhp. Still, the Goverment was not willing to temporarily halt the production lines even though it's performance with miltary power was rated at over 450mph and a ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft. Range was increased as well do to the efficency of the new props.

Evaluation by USAAF found that "Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance". It could reach 20,000 ft in an even 5 minutes.

It is sad that the P-38 never was allowed the time to get "re-tooled". Apparently, the K or (especially) the Merlin model, would have been devestating. Not to say that late war variants are bad.

AKA_TAGERT
09-01-2007, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Savage is a drum beating neo-con trying to push us into another war with Iran.He constantly whines about "Islamofascists" and his agenda is off the same page as the Israeli Knesset.Looks like we'll soon have another war to protect "our friend" again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor Nancy

RetiredRacer
09-01-2007, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recently picked up the first season set. One of the best parts of this set are the air combat stories being told by the real pilots themself's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm in Australia but can you tell where (anywhere in the world) I can purchase this set
please!!!!

Thank you

weaselwagon1
09-01-2007, 10:27 PM
I guess tagert is not a mel gibson fan.

horseback
09-01-2007, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RetiredRacer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recently picked up the first season set. One of the best parts of this set are the air combat stories being told by the real pilots themself's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm in Australia but can you tell where (anywhere in the world) I can purchase this set
please!!!!

Thank you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Googled History Channel, then selected Shows, then
dogfights, then Buy DVDs and it took me to this:

http://store.aetv.com/html/subject/index.jhtml?id=cat2220004

As for Savage, I'm a conservative myself, but I can't listen to the man. He's always angry. No sense of humor, no sense of fun. His egotism is genuine and bordering on a Messiah complex.

Give me Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham any day. They have fun promoting their views, and they do it with wit and style. They treat all but the most abusive callers with respect, make a genuine attempt at intelligent conversation.

Savage does none of these things, and I find him depressing, and a poor representative for my beliefs.

cheers

horseback

AKA_TAGERT
09-01-2007, 11:19 PM
Because the sad truth is..

The truth can be sad..

And that can be depressing at times..

Savage does not sugar coat it.. brass tacks..

And that turns some people off..

They only want to hear the good news.

For that Rush is great!

But sometimes he and Laura sugar coat the H out of a thin silver line to make it look 4 lanes wide..

Don't get me wrong!

I am all for positive Regan like thinking..

But not at the expense of the truth!

With that said, I am glad to see Rush finally getting on board with the illegal alien thing! Took him long enough, but for the past year he has been telling the Reps they better start listening or else! And that is a good thing IMHO!

Like Savage says.. Borders, Language, Culture!

Take care of that, and the rest will take care of itself!

AKA_TAGERT
09-01-2007, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
I guess tagert is not a mel gibson fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor Nancy

Jaws2002
09-02-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Savage is a drum beating neo-con trying to push us into another war with Iran. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooner or later we'll have to do it. Iran is the single biggest treat in the area and it was this way for a long time. After the first war, Irak was not a treat to anyone, but Iran is a the surce of problems in the area for decades.
Now is just a matter of time until they get their nukes ready.
I think their president is the type of guy that if he has them he'll use them or give them to hamas, hezbolah, or Al Qaida to use them on whoever they feel like.

We'll have to fight them sooner or later. I hope is going to be before they have the nukes.

Ob.Emann
09-02-2007, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Savage is a drum beating neo-con trying to push us into another war with Iran. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooner or later we'll have to do it. Iran is the single biggest treat in the area and it was this way for a long time. After the first war, Irak was not a treat to anyone, but Iran is a the surce of problems in the area for decades.
Now is just a matter of time until they get their nukes ready.
I think their president is the type of guy that if he has them he'll use them or give them to hamas, hezbolah, or Al Qaida to use them on whoever they feel like.

We'll have to fight them sooner or later. I hope is going to be before they have the nukes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By all credible non-neocon Strangelovite estimates, Iran is at least 10 years away from developing weaponized uranium suitable to build a nuclear bomb. Just for some perspective, Israel already has more than 400 nukes in its arsenal.

Technologically speaking, Iran by itself is absolutely no threat; a paper tiger constructed by the giddy minded armchair warriors of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv.

Jaws2002
09-02-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HH_Emann:
Just for some perspective, Israel already has more than 400 nukes in its arsenal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



But they didn't used them. They were involved in conventional wars but did not use nukes. Iran's president said officially that he would give the weapons to all the friends in the region. (including hamas, hezbolah, Al Qaida). he said repeatedly that he'll crush Israel. Their constitution is calling for the destruction of Israel. If/when this guy gets his hands on nukes he'll use them.
You don't have to listen to american biased media to realize that. Just read his statements and interviews.





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Technologically speaking, Iran by itself is absolutely no threat; a paper tiger constructed by the giddy minded armchair warriors of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF it was as weak as you are claming, the Brits wouldn't have allowed to be humiliated like they were few monts ago, when the Iranians hijacked their sailors in the gulf.

Xiolablu3
09-02-2007, 12:51 PM
Hmm, I dont believe that foir a second.

They absolutely disagree with the Wests way of life and the most extreme (which is a LOT of them) want to exterminate any 'non believers'.

There is no 'live and let live' in the extreme Muslims world. They even admit that they lie in everyday life, by condemning terrorism etc, but behind closed doors they fully support it.

I cant help but agree with Jaws. I dont trust them one bit.

Mad Religious people are the most dangerous/unstable enemy I can posssibly think of.

Copperhead311th
09-02-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RetiredRacer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recently picked up the first season set. One of the best parts of this set are the air combat stories being told by the real pilots themself's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm in Australia but can you tell where (anywhere in the world) I can purchase this set
please!!!!

Thank you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Googled History Channel, then selected Shows, then
dogfights, then Buy DVDs and it took me to this:

http://store.aetv.com/html/subject/index.jhtml?id=cat2220004

As for Savage, I'm a conservative myself, but I can't listen to the man. He's always angry. No sense of humor, no sense of fun. His egotism is genuine and bordering on a Messiah complex.

Give me Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham any day. They have fun promoting their views, and they do it with wit and style. They treat all but the most abusive callers with respect, make a genuine attempt at intelligent conversation.

Savage does none of these things, and I find him depressing, and a poor representative for my beliefs.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate Democrats. they should all be shot.
I hate Republians they should all be hanged by the neck till dead.
They all have thier own party's agenda as well as thier own interst at heart. screw the american ppl we just want what we want and we've got all the power and you can't have any nany nany boo boo.
Bullsh*t. I have the Second Amadment, and the freedom God Almighty and the US constition gave me. And a whole lot of other ppl who think like me. Those who live by power shall die by it.

Sorry Horseback but,
Limbaugh is a fat over weight baffoon with a prescription drug problem. And if his idea of freedom and decmocrocy is what the furure holds for us then we're better off haveing a revolt.

Like wise those leftist pantywaiste democrats who don't have the balls to stand up for this country need to go as well.

Comon ppl wake the F*ck up! how many millions did we spend in Alaska for a bridge that goes where? NOWHERE! all done in the name of some politicains legacy. sio ha could have something nanmed after him/her. Stop the pork! give each state a set amount anually and say here. spend this on this this on that and this much on infastructure. when it's gone you're SOL till next year.

I am & all ways will be BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. and by the people i mean good hard working blue collar americans, (Plumbers, waitresses, elctricians, truck drivers, retail workes ect.) and not big labor or big industry/big business. Anyone who makes over a 100,000 a year is a peaice of Sh*t imo.
A The CEO of intell should make the same money as Joe the black ditch digger. not strike that. Joe has a much more demanding Job. he should make more.

Sorry if i pulled this to far away from the intended subject matter. I'll stay out of here for the rest of the discution.

stathem
09-02-2007, 02:06 PM
Copperhead is a Communist?

Wow.

reisen52
09-02-2007, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Please note that I wrote 'at the moment I believe..' as in its only my opinion and it is always open to change if the weight of evidence is there.

AT moment however, I just cannot see the P38J winning out in manouverability over the Bf109G, as in talking about 'close in dogfighting' with equal pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The J model starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block had a hydraulic aileron booster system which vastly improved the roll rate.

It also had an electrically-operated dive flap underneath each wing to offset compressibility & combat flap settings for its main flaps.

Ob.Emann
09-02-2007, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
But they didn't used them. They were involved in conventional wars but did not use nukes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never asserted that any Middle Eastern country ever used nukes in combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he[Ahmadinejad] said repeatedly that he'll crush Israel. Their constitution is calling for the destruction of Israel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so. The ubiquitous "wipe Israel off the map" quote is absolutely incorrect and stems (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ)from mistranslated (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html) press reports (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866). In reality, Ahmadinejad said "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". ("Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad"), which he then goes on to compare to the fall of the (U.S. installed) Shah in 1979. It is clear that this phrase refers to his wish for the downfall or replacement of the current Israeli regime, not that he wants to turn the helpless little Israel into a giant glass parking lot with nonexistant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm) nuclear weapons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If/when this guy gets his hands on nukes he'll use them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I gather, all of the more belligerent statements he has made regarding Iran's military are in the context of their defensive abilities and fanatical loyalty blah blah blah in the event of their country being invaded by a foreign power. Ahmadinejad is clearly not stupid enough to think that launching a tactical nuclear attack on a neighboring country would be anything other than absolute suicide, with no geopolitical advantages whatsoever. If anything, it is Iran that is in danger of being "wiped off the map", what with two nuclear powers led by some delusional zealots (Muslim extremists certainly don't hold a monopoly in the militant religious fanaticism industry) breathing down its throat.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it was as weak as you are claming, the Brits wouldn't have allowed to be humiliated like they were few monts ago, when the Iranians hijacked their sailors in the gulf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That incident was very complicated, as the maritime boundary-line the British sailors were accused of crossing was an abitrary one, based on a 1975 land boundary that probably shifted due to the center of the Shatt al-Arab waterway moving over time. It is for these reasons that the map the British used to sell their side of the story was inaccurate and misleading, according to a recent British parliamentary report.

Xiolablu3
09-02-2007, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Please note that I wrote 'at the moment I believe..' as in its only my opinion and it is always open to change if the weight of evidence is there.

AT moment however, I just cannot see the P38J winning out in manouverability over the Bf109G, as in talking about 'close in dogfighting' with equal pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The J model starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block had a hydraulic aileron booster system which vastly improved the roll rate.

It also had an electrically-operated dive flap underneath each wing to offset compressibility & combat flap settings for its main flaps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even WITH those boosters its roll rate was far poorer than almost every WW2 single engined fighter of the time, until it got to high speed, around 550-600kph, then it was just about equal thanks to the powered ailerons.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

The roll rate was still pretty abysmal at most speeds, even on the powered version. Being worse than any single engined fighter right up to 500kph when the P38 was likely very near hitting compresiblilty anyway.

This is one of the reasons why I dont believe that you can compare manouverablity with single engined fighters.

Say you need to make a fast move in a certain direction, that roll rate seriously curtails its ability to do that and hence its overall 'manouverability'.

ANotehr reason is a few comments from the WW2 Joint Fighter COnference 1944. Comments like '[The P38] is not what I would call a modern fighting aircraft' and ' WOuld rather have F6F or Corsair for the Pacific theatre' really make me wonder about the claims some die-hard P38 fans make about the aircraft.

***Testers were from US Air Force/RAF/US NAvy and COntractors, all hoping to learn what makes a great fighter and for reference and in the hope that better future fighters could be produced if everyone collaborated :-


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

Best All Around Cockpit (91 percent of questionnaires returned)

F8F - 36%
F7F - 20%
F6F - 16%
F4U-4 - 12%
P-51 - 7%
F2G - 5%
P-47 - 4%

Worst Cockpit (95% of questionnaires returned)

P-38 - 55%
Mosquito - 11%
P-61 - 10%
F4U-4 - 9%
P-63 - 4%
P-47 - 3%
F6F - 2%
P-51 - 2%
Seafire - 2%
P-59 - 1%
FM - 1%

Best Cockpit Canopy (96% of questionnaires returned)

P-47 - 43%
P-51 - 24%
F8F - 16%
F4U-4 - 5%
F2G - 4%
F6F - 3%
F7F - 2%
Any good bubble - 3%

Nicest Arrangement of Engine Controls (94% return of questionnairs)

P-51 - 20%
F7F - 17%
P-47 - 13%
P-63 - 12%
F8F - 10%
F4U-4 - 9%
P-61 - 5%
F6F - 3%
Mosquito - 3%
F4U-1 - 2%
FM - 2%
Mock-up - 2% (I have no idea what this is)
P-38 - 1%
F2G - 1%

Most Convenient Gear and Flap Controls (94% return of questionnairs)

F8F - 19%
F6F - 18%
F7F - 14%
P-51 - 11%
F4U-1 - 8%
F4U-4 - 7%
P-63 - 5%
Mosquito - 3%
P-47 - 3%
P-61 - 3%
Mock up - 3% (I have no idea what this is)
F2G - 2%
FM - 2%
P-38 - 2%

Best All-Around Fighter Below 25,000ft (89% return of questionnaires)

F8F - 30%
P-51 - 29%
F4U-1 - 27%
F7F - 6%
F6F - 2&
Mosquito - 2%
F4U-4 - 2%
F2G - 2%

Best All-Around Fighter Above 25,000ft (82% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 45%
P-51 - 39%
F4U-1 - 7%
F6F - 3%
F4U-4 - 3%
Seafire - 2%
P-38 - 1%

Best Fighter-Bomber (72% return of questionnaires)

F4U-1 - 32%
P-47 - 19%
Mosquito - 14%
F6F - 12%
F7F - 11%
P-51 - 7%
P-38 - 5%

Best Strafer (75% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 41%
F4U-1 - 18%
F7F - 17%
P-51 - 9%
F6F - 7%
P-38 - 3%
F8F - 2%
P-63 - 2%
F2G - 2%

Most Comfortable Cockpit (92% return of questionnaire)

P-47 - 24%
F8F - 18%
F6F - 15%
F7F - 11%
F4U-4 - 9%
P-61 - 8%
P-51 - 7%
F4U-1 - 3%
FM - 2%
Seafire - 2%
F2G - 1%


Comments from Testers :-

Bad visibility to sides down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific -1.

I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, ****and its manueverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat**** -

1. As a fighter bomber - good; for fighter sweep-just fair; as escort - poor - 1.

Good due to 1) Twin engine reliability; 2) altitude performance; 3) good accelerated stall; 4) versatility; 5) dive recovery flaps which make prolonged zero lift possible - 1.

Apart from very queer aelerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly, and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air- 1.

An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present day Jap fighters. View is poor - too many struts in the way. Rudder makes aircraft very hard to manuever on first flight - 1.

Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high - 1.

Query on maintenance and operational problems with liquid cooled engines in hot climates -

1. Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat - 1.

Record speaks for itself - 1.

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


I get a general negative feeling about the plane whichever report I read. Only two of the 50 testers seemed to have anything good to say about the plane, and these could even have been Lockheed employees. (There were 25 contractors in the 52 testers)

Note that it is nowhere to be found in the 'Best fighter below 25,000 feet' with teh Mosquito getting a higher rating, and even the Seafire (A heavier Spitfire MkV) beats it in best fighter above 25,000feet.

I understand these are just a couple of reports, but the thing is I never seem to see any positive ones regarding the P38 in comparison to other fighters!

Can anyone post some positive reports/documents about the P38 in its comparison to other fighters??

Rammjaeger
09-02-2007, 08:34 PM
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x148/Rammjaeger1983/3.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x148/Rammjaeger1983/4.jpg

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x148/Rammjaeger1983/5.jpg

Gene B. Stafford: P-38 Lightning in Action. Squadron/Signal Publications


http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x148/Rammjaeger1983/6.jpg

From another release of the same publisher.

R_Target
09-02-2007, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
ANotehr reason is a few comments from the WW2 Joint Fighter COnference 1944. Comments like '[The P38] is not what I would call a modern fighting aircraft' and ' WOuld rather have F6F or Corsair for the Pacific theatre' really make me wonder about the claims some die-hard P38 fans make about the aircraft.

I get a general negative feeling about the plane whichever report I read. Only two of the 50 testers seemed to have anything good to say about the plane, and these could even have been Lockheed employees. (There were 25 contractors in the 52 testers)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

28 pilots flew and filled out questionnaires on the P-38 at the JFC. Of the 28, one was a USAAF pilot.

Xiolablu3
09-02-2007, 09:02 PM
There were US Navy, US Air Force, RAF and COntractors all there.

The idea was to pick the best and worst features of each aircraft, they all flew the same P38L.

Can you guys see the problem I am having, when I see the Mosquito rated as a better fighter below 25,000 feet and getting far better rating as a fighter bomber. (In fact, I believe, it rates higher or equal in every single category except for best strafer) And even a Seafire, which is basically an old SPitfire Vc with added weight, getting higher marks as a fighter above 25,000 feet. I have difficulty believing that the P38 was some 'super twin' which was far above all other twin engined planes.

Gibbage1
09-02-2007, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The RAF really hated the P38 versions that they got. I understand they were underpowered with no contras, but just a point.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brits ordered the Lightnings as a high altitude bomber intercepter. So why they removed the GE units AND the 20/37MM is beyond me. Not only did they do that, but they also removed 2 of the .50 cal's and replaced it with 2 .303's!!! They REALLY REALLY nutered the P-38. I dont blame them for not liking what they got. Just over 1000HP per engine, horrible altitude performance (like the P-39) and horrible firepower of 2 .50's and 2 .303's.

Also, note that the Brits also hated the P-39's. Russians seemed to like them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
09-02-2007, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
There were US Navy, US Air Force, RAF and COntractors all there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm aware of that. I have a copy right here on the shelf. On the top right of page 274 it says that one USAAF pilot flew and evaluated the P-38. Whether or not he had previous P-38 experience is unknown.

Gibbage1
09-02-2007, 09:29 PM
One note. The P-38 was NEVER INTENDED as a fighter. It was designed as a long range bomber intercepter. The fact that it even had a chance against a single engine aircraft is quite remarkable it itself. Even though it was designed to shoot down bombers, 97% of its air-2-air kills in WWII were fighters. It was very rare for it to get a crack at its intended roll, but did so in North Afrika.

19 P-38's spotted 20 Ju-52's being escorted by 109's and 110's. The P-38's shot ALL 20 Ju-52's and also 3 109's and 2 110's down. There were many many accounts like this over North Afrika.

Also, the P-38 was the only fighter in the world to produce an "instant ace". Thats scoring your 1st kill, and your 5th kill in the same flight. It produced about 5 such "instant aces" in the war, 3 of them in Europe.

Not bad for a bomber intercepter, hay?

horseback
09-02-2007, 09:41 PM
Joint Fighter Conference took place late in the war, by which time the P-38 had largely been surpassed by other, mostly later Allied types. I'd like to point out that the 'base' P-38 design was set in 1940, and locked in by need to keep it in production without major changes because at the time America entered the war, it was the only USAAF fighter in production that had anything remotely like world class range, performance & firepower. This remained the case through 1943.

It was simply the best we had at the time.

BUT the cockpit layout was atrocious, the comfort level for the pilot at altitude was nil, there were some critical design omissions (for instance, there was only one electrical generator for the whole aircraft, but it was run by only one of the engines-if that engine went out, it took the generator with it...), and some things that worked well over the home plant in LA didn't work so well over Germany. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> Add that it took 200 hours or more (in practical terms for the time, at least 4 months of 5 days a week flying) to become merely proficient.</span>

I doubt that many of the participants in the Joint Fighter Conference had the time to become proficient in the Lightning and truly plumb its depths and perceive its potential, which remained formidible to war's end. Even a highly experienced pilot could not hope to get much out of it in the 20 hours or less most of them got in each type.

As for the chart comparisons, I understand that if we use the standard roll procedures required for testing, it looks pretty shabby. However, I have also read that the Lightning's roll could be greatly augmented by applying rudder and applying more throttle to the appropriate engine and adding its torque to help you get around.

Now about that canopy, I can only point out that making 'bubble' type canopies was a relatively new art, and some manufacturers had a terrible time trying to fit one for their current fighter. While I never understood why Lockheed didn't at least go to a Malcolm type sliding hood, we have to remember that the Lightning's canopy and windscreen wasn't remotely as bad as the "Cyclops on a pivot" view we get in the game for it.

The AAF's concerns about production interrruptions may have come into play there, as well as for some of the more egregious control locations in the cockpit. As I said, it was the only game in town for the first two years the US was in the war.

cheers

horseback

horseback
09-02-2007, 09:57 PM
Gibbage,

the Wildcat, Hellcat and the Corsair all produced at least one instant ace each (first through fifth kills on the same mission). I can't be positive, but I believe that there was a P-40 driver who managed it in the Pacific too.

As for the Mustang, there were several sorties where the pilot scored five or more kills; Chuck Yeager and Sydney Woods being two of these, but both of these men were already accomplished combat pilots with multiple kills already under their belts.

I don't know if there were any green 2nd Lts who got 1 through 5 the first time they scored in a Mustang or Thunderbolt, but it wouldnt surprise me if there were, especially amongst the long range groups flying out of Iwo Jima late in the war.

cheers

horseback

Gibbage1
09-02-2007, 10:22 PM
My sources or my interpritation of the sources must be wrong, but I swore I read in a few differant books that the P-38 was the only instant ace maker of the war, and there was 5. One pilot downed 5 Ju-87's in a single pass.

"Maj. William L. Leverette, also of thel4th Fighter Group, held the P-38 single-mission record. On October 9, 1943, in his first combat, he claimed seven Stukas destroyed over the Aegean Sea. He flew a P-38G named Stingeree.

"We got in behind them without being seen," Leverette wrote in his combat report. "We peeled off into the middle of them, and I got two before they even knew we were there. The gunner in the first started to open fire, but he stopped as soon as I let go."

Leverette banked left and hosed .50-caliber and 20mm rounds into two more Stukas, thus suppressing the chance of return fire. One German bailed out. Then, selecting a fourth victim, Leverette took a 30-degree-deflection shot at 200 yards. "I saw the cannon shells hit his engine, tearing off chunks in front of him. A lone plane that popped out of the formation was my fifth; I just gave him a burst from 20 yards."

Leverette pressed his next attack even closer. His left propeller hacked pieces out of the doomed Junkers, which dropped from sight.

"My last hit was the best," the new ace said. "I was closing on a Stuka from the right when he turned into me. I turned in a steep bank to the left and had to turn over a little to get a shot. I got a good one and set his engine on fire." .

Korolov1986
09-02-2007, 10:24 PM
Xiolablu,

The problem is you're trying to compare an aircraft designed during wartime with no constraints other than usage of materials, with an aircraft that was designed in peacetime with all the restrictions that go with it.

The P-38 was an aircraft that you either loved or hated. It's a lot like how many pilots would prefer earlier marks of the Spitfire over the latest and greatest types available, or how IJ pilots preferred the A6M over later planes due to agility. The pilots that flew the P-38 were so accustomed to their aircraft and so experienced with them, that they had learned to effectively take advantage of its' characteristics. These characteristics will NOT be clearly shown with only a quick check ride in the aircraft.

For example, would you want to fly a Spitfire in the pacific for 9 hours straight? Assuming that you had the capability to do so, of course. I know a lot of Spit pilots probably would say "YES!!!" to that question, but I sincerely doubt there'd be as many around today if it had been the case. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The P-38 had long legs from the word "go"; this only got better as the war went along, with the addition of more internal fuel and drop tanks. But what really made it nice - over single engine types - was the redundancy coming from a second engine. This was one of the key reasons that the P-38 stuck around in the PTO for as long as it did.

Would a Mosquito, if available, have been better? Sure. The Mosquito was not hamstrung by a isolationist, idiotic, ignorant, ham-fisted congress who conveniently turned a blind eye toward the world around them. The Mosquito was on the boards when bombs were falling all over the whole damn English countryside! I'd even hazard to say that the Mosquito would have been vastly better due to having two crewmen instead of one.

Of course, the issue remains that in 1939-1941, the Mosquito was not available to the USAAF, and I'm sure NIH syndrome would probably have kept it out of service before Pearl Harbor. Given these factors, the P-38 was pretty much the best thing since sliced bread available to the USAAF before '44 - consider the fact that the only other types were the P-40 and the P-39, of which I think you'll agree were spotty performers at best!

There's plenty of info out there that portrays the P-38 in a excellent light, and the first glance that the two top USAAF fighter pilots flew it basically explains what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty lazy at the moment so I'll have to hope one of the other guys will tack on a few stories or two from some pilots.

@horseback

Add the P-47 to that list; the last ace in a day, Oscar Perdomo - on August 13, 1945, he shot down 4 Oscars and 1 Willow over Korea while flying a P-47N. I bet you already knew that, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

R_Target
09-02-2007, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
the Wildcat, Hellcat and the Corsair all produced at least one instant ace each (first through fifth kills on the same mission). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were quite a few for the F6F, but I can't remember how many.

Stiletto-
09-03-2007, 12:20 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Horseback and Korolov, that you can't really become an ace in a P-38 with the few hours the pilots got testing all the aircraft, keep in mind that these aren't even combat situations.... So surely you are going to grade the comforts of controls and ease of flying the plane and care less about raw performance when you can't judge your P-47 P-51 or P-38 against a 109 who is doing the same maneuvers each time. It's like a sports or race car.. Sure it is balanced and handles good and is easy to control, but without a Ferrari on the track running the same laptimes each lap, how well do you know how your machine is actually doing?

Besides this, throughout publications biased and un-biased... I believe its widely regarded that the P-38 was better than the P-40 and P-39, not going into Navy fighters, in a way that is like apple and oranges... Some planes get good stigmas and some get bad, if the P-38 is such a krap plane then why has it had this "aura" around it while the P-40 and P-39 have not? Surely this is do to pilot opinons and real life, first-hand accounts..

weaselwagon1
09-03-2007, 12:28 AM
Some of you guys should read a little bit more.It was nice of the Israelis to warn us about the 19 Hijackers they were following around for months here in the USA-see the now forgotten FOX news report on this,a 4 part series that you can look at yourselves.Those *******s were very happy to let them attack us and with good reason,we removed their only viable opponent in the region with a strong force that was willing to attack them.Look up the amount of foreign aid were giving them.Now we gotta invade Iran next to help 'em?Never mind how they blow up families having picnics on beaches and blast wheelchair bound "terrorists" coming out mosques along with a dozen women and children in one of their "targeted assasinations".Has everybody forgotten the USS Liberty as well?

weaselwagon1
09-03-2007, 12:34 AM
BTW-Anyone doubts the FOX news series,go to EMULE,type in a search for "Israel spy 9-11" or something similar,and download it....

ViktorViktor
09-03-2007, 12:43 AM
On the subject of pilots who became aces in their first air combats -

I believe there was a P-51 pilot in the Pacific theatre, William Shomo, who knocked down 6 bandits in his first combat.

He caused a great deal of consternation and indignation when he returned to his airbase and proceeded to perform 6 victory rolls. It seems personnel on the ground thought he was just horsing around.

Hope I remembered that correctly.

R_Target
09-03-2007, 01:06 AM
Shomo was flying an F-6 recon Mustang on that mission. After becoming an Ace, he got a shiny new Mustang which had "The Flying Undertaker" painted on the side, as Shomo was a mortician by trade.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 05:27 AM
Please note, just incase this conversation turns nasty, that I am playing a bit of 'devils advocate' here in the hope of getting you guys to post some good info on the P38. Although I am still not convinced about the P38 vs Bf109 manouverability. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We should also bear in mind that the results of the JFC can not be taken as gospel truth. The testers all bring their own biases to the table, particularly the contracters who may even be 'testing' some of their own planes. It is also tesing some very old types against planes not even yet in service.
The whole point of the conference was to try and pick out good points and faults in existing designs and improve future fighter designs by having a place where various USAAF/RAF/USNavy/Contracter pilots could try out different planes, collaborate and decide what was best/worst.

However, I think its quite a good bit of reference as long as we just treat it as a general source, and reference it along with other documents/opinions/tests, and not as the single, absolute truth.

Thanks to Horseback, Korolov, Stilleto Gibbage for comments so far.

Please keep going on why the P38 was a good fighter.

AKA_TAGERT
09-03-2007, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One note. The P-38 was NEVER INTENDED as a fighter. It was designed as a long range bomber intercepter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be crystal..

The ARMY requirements were for a long range bomber intercepter..

That was the minimum requirement..

Mr. K Johnson met and surpassed those requirements and gave the ARMY what they really needed..

In that sometimes..

Actually most of the time..

The contractor knows better what the ARMY needs than the ARMY itself..

Take the P51 dev for example.. The Brits wanted P40s.. but we gave them P51s

Korolov1986
09-03-2007, 11:28 AM
Here's a few links you can look at, Xio:

Interview with Robert Carey (http://p-38online.com/carey.html), P-38 pilot from the 474th FG

Kelly Johnson's (http://p-38online.com/char.html) points overview of the P-38

I was trying to find an old post I made that quoted some points put forth by a MTO P-38 pilot but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 03:05 PM
Also note that nobody is saying the P-38 was any better then any other aircraft in WWII. We are just trying to show nay-sayers that it was, in fact, a very good fighter. The only twin engine fighter even capable of giving most single engine aircraft a run for its money. Including a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Let me just dig up some Tactical Trials.

"FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE 6 March 1943"

"For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and fire power, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station. Types tested include the P-47, P-51, P-40F and P-39D-1. "

Note that its a P-38F, without combat flaps.

"SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38G TYPE AIRPLANE AS COMPARED TO THE P-38F 3 May 1943"

"c. The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180? in 360? circle) due to maneuver flaps. "

So, the G was "much better then the P-38F" due too combat flaps, but even without, it have even the P-40, P-39 and P-51 a run for the money and was considered "the best production line fighter tested to date". The P-40 and P-39 are rather good turning aircraft. Maybe a P-38 out turning a 109 is not as far fetched as you may think?

There was also a trial of a P-38F vs a Spit (V I think) were the Spit was only able to turn "slightly" better then the P-38F. Again, thats WITHOUT the combat flaps that help it turn much better. Also, in the test above, they noted that the P-38 was at a loss due too slow onset of roll to get into the turn, but even with this, it still was able to compete with the single engine fighters.

It was a very remarkable twin engine fighter, thats for sure!

Stiletto-
09-03-2007, 03:34 PM
Gibbage, I am wondering if this test vs the Spitfire you are talking about is one where they had a mock dogfight and the Spitfire could not escape, or atleast not get on the P-38's tail, while both nations ground crew watched below? My memory is very vague on this and it actually maybe some other USAAF fighter, and not even a P-38.

Copperhead311th
09-03-2007, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Some of you guys should read a little bit more.It was nice of the Israelis to warn us about the 19 Hijackers they were following around for months here in the USA-see the now forgotten FOX news report on this,a 4 part series that you can look at yourselves.Those *******s were very happy to let them attack us and with good reason,we removed their only viable opponent in the region with a strong force that was willing to attack them.Look up the amount of foreign aid were giving them.Now we gotta invade Iran next to help 'em?Never mind how they blow up families having picnics on beaches and blast wheelchair bound "terrorists" coming out mosques along with a dozen women and children in one of their "targeted assasinations".Has everybody forgotten the USS Liberty as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man Fox News is about as credible as Micky F*cking Mouse landing a 1932 ford on the planet Venus. Seriously they dont' call it the Fox Noise chanel for nothing. And if i have to look at that B*itchZilla Ann Coultier ever again i think i'll puke. My idea of a good night would be locking Ann & Hillery in a steel cage and giving each a butcher knife and let go at it in a knife fight. and as much as i dedpise democrats...after 8 years of W i'd have to pull for hilery in that one.

and no i'm not a damn COMMIE. I'm BLUE COLLAR CENTTRIST.

horseback
09-03-2007, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My sources or my interpritation of the sources must be wrong, but I swore I read in a few differant books that the P-38 was the only instant ace maker of the war, and there was 5. One pilot downed 5 Ju-87's in a single pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gib, you must realize by now that the USAAF/USAF spent a great deal of time in WWII and immediately thereafter pretending that the Navy and Marines never flew anything more sophisticated than a PBY (which was unquestionably designed and flown for the express purpose of picking up downed USAAF aircrew), and that most unit historians never heard of any other units outside of their own immediate vicinity.

They have a bad case of 'Tigger Syndrome'. If you had a remotely happy childhood, or have small children of your own, you'll remember the line in Tigger's Song where he sings:

But the most wonderful thing about tiggers is-
IIIII'mmmm the only one! Yes-
I'm the only one!

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also note that nobody is saying the P-38 was any better then any other aircraft in WWII. We are just trying to show nay-sayers that it was, in fact, a very good fighter. The only twin engine fighter even capable of giving most single engine aircraft a run for its money. Including a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I have a real problem with this comment when I see that the Mosquito is rated a better fighter below 25,000 feet, and also beats the P38, or is equal to it, in every 'fighter relevant' category in the JFC.


I dont get how you come up with a twin engine plane that scould compete with single engined fighters when we read comments like this from test pilots :-

'Its manouverability rating is so low as to proclude its use in modern combat'

'I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform'

'Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high '

'Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat'


I just dont get where you are getting your info from. Sure it had a great climb rate, it was fast, but I am gathering it had very pooor manouverability. Even if it COULD compete, it sounds like the Mosquito was just as good in all respects, possibly even better.

Why did the USAAF desperately want Mosquitos but dump its P38's? The P51 vs P38 'cost' arguament doesnt wash here.

AKA_TAGERT
09-03-2007, 05:02 PM
I belive those comments were based on the 38F? Which as Gib pointed didnt have combat flaps. As for too many gadgets.. I don't know of any pilot that thought a twin was easier to deal with, gadget wise, than a single engine fighter. Im sure the first time in one it would seem overwelming.. Which is typical of some test pilots.. But combat pilots that spend hours and hours in them found the gadgets to become 2nd nature.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 05:03 PM
'General Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), witnessed a demonstration of the Mosquito on 20 April 1941 as a guest of Lord Beaverbrook. Geoffrey de Havilland JR was in prime form that day, screaming the machine low over the ground and performing sharp maneuvers with one engine feathered. Arnold was extremely impressed, and returned to the US with engineering drawings of the machine.

There matters more or less stood with the Yanks until late 1942, when a B.IV Mosquito was given to Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, the American President's son and commander of a USAAF reconnaissance squadron in North Africa, equipped with Lockheed F-4 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft. The B.IV was faster and had much longer range than the Lockheeds, and Elliot Roosevelt began to press for adopting the British machine.

In the meantime, Mosquitos were finally beginning to roll off the production lines at de Havilland Canada in the Toronto area, and in December 1942 Geoffrey de Havilland JR brought one of the first Canadian Mosquitos down to Washington DC. Hap Arnold ordered that airport traffic be held off for a half hour to allow de Havilland to put on an aerial demonstration over the city. Geoffrey De Havilland then left for California to perform more demonstrations. He went by train in order to see the country, and the Mosquito went separately. In Los Angeles he met with his cousin, actress Olivia de Havilland.

Hap Arnold now became very determined to get his hands on the Mossie, beginning with a offer to swap P-51 Mustangs for Mosquitos. The British turned him down. The Mosquito was increasingly seen as difficult to replace. Had Canada been producing Mosquitos in volume at the time, the Americans might have been able to get their hands on part of the production, but the Canadians were slow to ramp up, with only 90 Mosquitos built there in 1943. At least Arnold's persistent lobbying to get Mosquitos helped convince Bomber Command that they had something of value.

The Americans did manage to get their hands on a relatively small batch of Canadian aircraft. The US signed an agreement with the British government in October 1943 for 120 Canadian-built Mosquito bombers, but limited production meant that the US only got 5 B.VIIs and 35 B.XXs. They were converted to a reconnaissance configuration with US-built cameras, redesignated "F.8", and sent to the UK for service with the USAAF Eighth Air Force.

The F.8's camera suite was minimal and the single-stage Merlins really didn't provide the performance the USAAF wanted, and so the F.8s were eventually replaced by PR.XVIs. The Americans obtained over a hundred PR.XVIs, along with a handful of T.IIIs for conversion or continuance training.

***AMERICAN PILOTS CONVERTING FROM THEIR LOCKHEED F4 and F5 LIGHTINGS, which had "handed" propellers, had to be trained to deal with the Mosquito's tendency to roll against the rotation of its propellers on takeoff. There was a worse problem in that over-anxious fighter pilots tended to mistake Mosquitos for Messerschmitt Me-410s, which in fact did have a similar configuration, and so the USAAF gave their PR.XVIs red-painted tails as a recognition aid.

The majority of the Yank PR.XVIs were used in their intended photoreconnaissance role, but a good number of them were used for weather reconnaissance, and they were also modified for special tasks. Some were fitted with US-built "H2X" targeting radar, the American three-centimeter counterpart to the British ten-centimeter H2S, mounted in the nose radome. As American crews referred to H2X as "Mickey" for some forgotten reason, these were known as "Mickey Ships". Some USAAF Mosquitos were fitted out for dispensing chaff, and seven were fitted with communications gear to support Allied agents and resistance forces in Occupied Europe.

USAAF Mosquitos were also fitted to use the LORAN navigation system, the American answer to Gee, and as LORAN was something of an Allied standard later in the war it is plausible that some RAF Mosquitos had LORAN receivers as well.'

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss2.html


The US tried very very hard to get hold of Mosquitos, but only managed to get a few, as they were deemed too important to sell at the time. If the real planes were as they are in game, the US would never have even bothered looking at the Mosquito - they would have used the P38 and its 'Super-twin' abilty! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

horseback
09-03-2007, 05:07 PM
Posted this many moons ago (March 06, 2004), before the P-38 had received its first patch repair:

"From VIIIth Fighter Command at War 'Long Reach'; I will only quote statements about relative strengths and weaknesses of the P-38 vs LW fighters and skip the basic common sense tactics like "avoid being outnumbered or boxed in."

LTCOL Mark Hubbard, CO, 20th FG, on individual combat tactics, starting at p.80:

"1. The P-38 will out turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 25,000 ft (approx 7500m), so we wait until he is about one-half to one mile (800 to 1600m) in back of us and then turn into him. Flights on either side may be dispatched to attack if time permits.

2. After the turn we can generally attack him. If he zooms up, we climb until he breaks down, when we attack. If we cannot outclimb him we continue on our course (opened up, line abreast) and let him make another pass if he so desires. Eventually, he will break down and we attack.

4. When the enemy attacks, we out turn him (this a GIVEN in this man's opinion; he
has no doubts about his a/c's ability in this regard-HB) and continue on course always in line abreast opened up formation so we support each other.

Offensive

3. The enemy will try turning with us and then invariably half-rolls. We spiral after him AS WE CANNOT FOLLOW HIM IN A PROLONGED DIVE due to buffeting in the P-38, although we can initially out-dive him.

4. To avoid overshooting, dive below him and pull up after him to kill speed. Throw down combat flaps and ****** throttles. We stay until buffeting starts. (I interpret this to mean that he was confidant in his ability to accelerate with his opponent,i.e., to stay with his target until it is destroyed. He also had no problems with staying slow until the buffeting that warns of a stall-HB)

8. To break off combat, out-climb him if under 20,000 ft (6800m). Out-turn him and head for some help. We can outrun him up to 25,000 ft with an even start.

Defensive Formation Tactics

3. The attack has to be determined and prolonged to force us to drop tanks. This aeroplane handles very well with belly tanks.

4. Almost all enemy attacks are from astern and start from above. Occasionally a head-on pass is made, but we can shoot as well as he, and our firepower is superior."

From "P-38 Lightning", by the late Jeffery Ethell, published 1983: Johannes Steinhoff is quoted, "I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign. Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted in the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape."

In the next paragraph, Franz Steigler, a 28 kill ace with JG 27, says that the P-38s "COULD TURN INSIDE US WITH EASE and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly (caught up to an aircraft that had just passed them-HB) 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 be gone." (These were P-38F, G, and H models, without hydraulic assisted aileron controls; the J and L were considered at least on a par with the Mustang in this respect-HB)

COL Oliver B. Taylor, CO of the 14th FG in 1944, in the same book, said this about the P-38:

"1. Ease of Handling. It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more, to achieve the level of skill which was necessary to realize the full capability of the ship, as compared with what it took with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 or 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert, but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in the 38.

2. Vertical Dives. The 38 could not be controlled in a vertical dive if allowed to build up speed, and that happened awfully damned fast, with speed rapidly building up thereafter until something came apart. The Jerry knew this well.

3. Stability. The plane could be pulled into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter-rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds.

4. Maneuverability. Generally, we found that the 38 could out maneuver anything else, friend or foe, between about 18,000 and 31,000 ft (5490 and 9450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss-up, except that very near the ground we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could."

What I gather from these and several other books read over the last 30 years is this: you could not develop an appreciation of the Lightning's capabilities without at least a couple of months of steady flying time (4 hours a day of flight time on a regular basis was about the maximum possible with one aircraft, allowing for weather, maintenance, and other factors at the time). This means that the average fighter/test pilot (and his average enormous ego) would not like his first flights in the Lightning compared to, say, a Spitfire or a YaK, because it was much harder to get its maximum performance from it.

This is what led to the uniformly negative comments on the Lightning by foreign evaluators. Even when a Tony Levier or a Milo Burcham demonstrated what the airplane could do, it would be hard for any man to admit that he wasn't as good at what he did best as someone else. He could always rationalize that if he couldn't figure it out right away, that the average pilot would never get a handle on the thing.

My assessment is that few, if any, foreign pilots ever operated the type in combat as a fighter, and therefore never crossed Col. Taylor's 200 flying hours line. That means they never came to a full appreciation of the a/c's potential, and their evaluation is more of an excercise in xenophobia than a useful appraisal.

Any evaluation of the P-38 by Soviet authorities would almost ineveitably conclude that it was too complicated to meet their needs, and the maintenance demands would exceed their capabilities in the field, long before they gave a serious thought to the combat potential of it as a fighter. The sheer size of the thing would be off-putting to someone familiar with Soviet-built fighters. If Oleg and his team are paying serious attention to those kinds of sources, he's not going to get an accurate picture.

The guys who did get the hang of flying the Lightning got results in combat against the best the enemy had to offer. Only in the ETO were there serious problems, but units operating the same models of the aircraft in the Med did not suffer the same difficulties in similar conditions. There are lots of theories about this, but two stick out: avgas used in England-based units was of a different grade or quality from that used in the Med or Pacific. The Merlin and R-2800 engines were more tolerant of this, but the Allison with the turbo supercharger was very finicky. The Merlins in the ETO burned up spark plugs; the Allisons burned or blew themselves up.

The other problem was training of the ETO units. The 1st FG and the other FGs in N. Africa and the Med had been extensively trained in the P-38 for long periods Stateside before the war, building up to combat operations. Most of the quirks of the Lightning had been learned and mastered under the instruction of Lockheed's top test pilots and engineers. Following units, under the pressures of wartime demands, got standard fighter training, in single seat fighters, with a leavening of time in the P-322, the turbo-less version the RAF gave back. Many knowledgeable observers suggest that the 322 was not a useful teaching aid, lacking many of the standard Lightning's better characteristics. Other twin engine experience was gained in basic bomber type trainers, with very little resemblance to a high-performance aircraft.

Predictably, once operational, with few experienced Lightning drivers among them, these units had much poorer results than their single-engined counterparts. By this time, the higher cost per unit and the better results for the average pilot translated into the Lightning being passed over to the 9th AF and other theaters of operation, where they were happily accepted.

LW units that met these pilots were generally unimpressed; when you throw in the likelihood that due to mechanical aborts, the these unit were almost always understrength at the point of contact and at or above their best fighting altitude, you begin to understand some Germans' disdain for the type.

It would be difficult to create an accurate FM for this aircraft, particularly its' greatest virtues. If, however, it was accurate, I suspect COL Taylor's assessment about taking 150 to 200 hours to learn to fly it right comes into play, and it will be two or three months before the whining about certain pilots with fork-tailed UFOs starts.

We'll see."

Cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I belive those comments were based on the 38F? Which as Gib pointed didnt have combat flaps. As for too many gadgets.. I don't know of any pilot that thought a twin was easier to deal with, gadget wise, than a single engine fighter. Im sure the first time in one it would seem overwelming.. Which is typical of some test pilots.. But combat pilots that spend hours and hours in them found the gadgets to become 2nd nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am quite sure they were commenting on the P38L from 1944, Tag.

R_Target owns the book, could you tell us what model the Lightings were at the JFC, mate?

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The US tried very very hard to get hold of Mosquitos, but only managed to get a few, as they were deemed too important to sell at the time. If the real planes were as they are in game, the US would never have even bothered looking at the Mosquito - they would have used the P38 and its 'Super-twin' abilty! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your full of BS. Your talking recon aircraft and bombers. Im talking fighters. How many 109's were shot down by photo recon Mossy's?

Korolov1986
09-03-2007, 05:32 PM
EDIT: horseback was faster.

JRJacobs
09-03-2007, 05:52 PM
excerpts from the internet
In March 1940, the French and the British ordered a total of 667 P-38s, designated Model 322F for the French and Model 322B for the British. The aircraft would be a variant of the P-38E, without turbo-supercharging (<span class="ev_code_RED">due to a U.S. government export prohibition</span>), and twin right-handed engines instead of counter-rotating, for commonality with the large numbers of Curtiss Tomahawks both nations had on order. Three were delivered in March 1942 and, after discovering, without their superchargers and when using lower-octane British aircraft fuel, they had a maximum speed of 300 miles per hour (480 km/h) and poor handling characteristics, the entire order was canceled.

The P-38 performed well in the ETO despite being outnumbered 10 to 1 and suffering frequent engine failures, attributed to parts that could not tolerate the low-grade European fuel. Many of the aircraft's problems were addressed by the P-38J, but by September 1944, all but one of the Lightning groups in the Eighth Air Force had converted to the P-51. The Eighth did continue to operate F-5s with more success

However, in air combat over Germany, the Lightning was generally outclassed by the more maneuverable Fw 190 and the later marks of the Bf 109, especially at medium and low altitudes. However, the Lightning had a much faster top speed, a higher rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. Once pilots had perfected fighting tactics which suited the Lightning's unique characteristics, they had better success. The usual tactics was for the P-38 to climb to a high altitude and then dive down on the enemy, attacking him with a burst of firepower and then zoom back up out of harm's way. The later versions of the P-38 were equipped with maneuvering flaps, and when their pilots learned how to use these flaps properly, the P-38 could hold its own when maneuvering against German fighters, often being able to turn inside their Fw 190 and Bf 109 opponents

The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat.

The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire.

These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down.

When the equipment was working properly, the P-38 was a definite match for German fighters. In fact, when below 20,000 ft., the P-38 was superior in many ways. The problem was that the Germans rarely engaged American fighters at lower altitudes. General Doolittle was especially fed up with all the engine problems. Many theories exist as to the reason why. In other theaters, the Allison engines were fairly reliable. One theory was that the quality of the British aircraft fuel was not a high as the American developed aircraft fuel. When operating with the British fuel, this theory states that the turbochargers would become more volatile and cause terminal engine failures. Another possible theory was the nature of the combat and weather. The aircraft, especially in the fall/winter months, were constantly soaked with moisture on the grounds. Combine that with flying at extreme high altitudes, conditions were ripe for engine failures. In other theaters, the P-38s flew at lower altitudes, and were not operating in the same weather conditions. Whatever the reason for the engine problems, the P-38 was on the way out in the ETO.

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 06:06 PM
Thanks for the good post JRJacobs. The reason why the GE's were removed from the model 322's is debated about as much as why the ETO was so harsh on the P-38's engine!

Bodie said in his book, that the British asked them to be removed since the GE units required a LOT of maintenance. Also, the Brits took delivery of B-17's in early 1941, and each had 4 GE units.

Weather the Brits asked for the GE's to be removed, or the US Gov simply didnt play nice with its Allies? I dont know. We may never know the full thruth. It may be a combo of both.

JRJacobs
09-03-2007, 06:15 PM
YW G
also from wikpedia
Ace in a day
The term "ace in a day" is used to designate a fighter pilot who has shot down five or more airplanes in a single day. The most notable is Hans-Joachim Marseille of Germany, who was credited with downing 17 Allied fighters in just three sorties over North Africa on September 1, 1942, during World War II. Numerous other Luftwaffe pilots also claimed the title during World War II.

On December 5, 1941, the leading Australian ace of World War II, Clive Caldwell, destroyed five German aircraft in the space of a few minutes, also in North Africa. He received two Distinguished Flying Crosses for the feat.

During World War II, <span class="ev_code_RED">68 US pilots " 43 US Army Air Forces, 18 US Navy, and seven US Marine Corps</span> " were credited the feat, including David McCampbell, who claimed seven Japanese planes shot down on June 19, 1944 (during the "Marianas Turkey Shoot"), and nine in a single mission on October 24, 1944. Others included Joe Foss, Chuck Yeager and Oscar Francis Perdomo, the last US "ace in a day".[citation needed]

Other pilots to have claimed "ace in a day" status during World War II include Antoni Glowacki of Poland, during the Battle of Britain, and Jorma Sarvanto of Finland, during the Winter War.

The last pilot credited with the feat was Pakistani F-86 pilot Muhammad Mahmood Alam,[citation needed] during the 1965 war with India.

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 06:27 PM
Ace in a day and instant ace are two differant things. Im talking about 1st and 5th in a single flight. Thats a lot more spacific then 5 or more aircraft in a day.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 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 Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The US tried very very hard to get hold of Mosquitos, but only managed to get a few, as they were deemed too important to sell at the time. If the real planes were as they are in game, the US would never have even bothered looking at the Mosquito - they would have used the P38 and its 'Super-twin' abilty! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your full of BS. Your talking recon aircraft and bombers. Im talking fighters. How many 109's were shot down by photo recon Mossy's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not full of BS at all.

The USAir Force only managed to get 40 Mosquito's in total, all the bomber version. They were pressing for far more. They managed to secure a small order for 120 bombers versions butr only recieved 40. They used all they could get for Photo Recon and special Opsbecause that was the most valuable srvice those few could perform whilst making sure therer was much less risk of damage.

As they had already made an order for 120 aircraft and wanted even more, I would think it sensible to assume that had they been able to get more, particularly the fighter, fighter bomber versions of the Mosquito, they wouldnt have used them ALL for Photo Recon and Special Ops. (120 planes is a lot for a Recon Squadron!) That was simply the most important job that they could do with those few aircraft.

They HAD to put them in a lowish risk environment since they could not be sure of any more aircraft and its almost certain spare parts were almost impossible or extremely hard to get.

R_Target
09-03-2007, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3
I am quite sure they were commenting on the P38L from 1944, Tag.

R_Target owns the book, could you tell us what model the Lightings were at the JFC, mate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a P-38L at the JFC.

Something else to remember about the JFC: on the first page it notes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is emphasized that the opinions expressed in this summary represent a cross-section opinion of the participants of the conference and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Navy Department, nor of any of the individuals, services, or contractors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US was desperate for more P-38's. So much so that they would not allow the factory to be stopped for a few days to implament improvements in the K model. This sort of desperation hampered development a lot during its production.

P.S. What did the P-38 do too you in a past life to make you hate it so much? Maybe its the fact that the aircraft in your sig totally failed as a twin engine fighter, and the P-38 did not?

Bremspropeller
09-03-2007, 07:02 PM
He doesn't, but he thinks you're cute when you're getting aroused. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-03-2007, 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 Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the US was so "desperate" for Mossy's, then why did they use them for recon only? No my friend, the US was desperate for more P-38's. So much so that they would not allow the factory to be stopped for a few days to implament improvements in the K model. This sort of desperation hampered development a lot during its production.

P.S. What did the P-38 do too you in a past life to make you hate it so much? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont hate the P38 at all, you are assuming wrongly. Reread some of my posts. In fact I believe it was an excellent twin engined heavy fighter, in the same mould as the Mosquito, Beaufighter, Bf110, Whirlwind. Definitely one of the best twin engined heavy fighters/fighter bombers.

I just can't believe it was the only twin engined plane able to compete with single engined fighters, Personally I dont believe any twin was as manouverable as the top single engined fighters of the day. But if I am wrong, and you guys are right that a twin could compete, then why could the Mosquito not compete as well as the P38?

Its a question I have asked before in the hope to gain answers, not to poor 'hate' on the P38.

It would seem quite obvious that if the US could only get 40 aircraft, and not be sure of any more/spare parts, so much so that a written off part meant a whole aircraft out of action, that it would put it in a low riskish/non direct combat environment. They were also the bomber version. But I dont know the definite reason they used them all for Recon and Special Ops, I can only specualte.

Recon and Special Ops are arguably much more important, than fighter vs fighter for the Mosquito, WOuldnt you say? Especially when you have better suited and more manouverable single engined fighters available for fighter work. The absolute fastest and best Spitfires and Mosquitos were reserved in the RAF for reconasaince, I would assume its the same in most air forces.

Also, It would also seem a bit daft to send their 40 only aircrft that they have been pressing hard for, and finally managed to secure, straight into a heavy enemy environment and lose 30 of them in 3 months through various levels of damage and losses.

But anyway, I didnt post that about the Recon Mossies as the be all and end all to the discussion. Its meant to be combined with the JFC comparisons and ratings in regard to other fighters to show that in many pilots opinons, the Mosquito was as a good of a heavy fighter and fighter/bomber as the P38, and a lot of people didnt rate the P38 very highly at all. That was the point/opinion I am trying to make.

Korolov1986
09-03-2007, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ace in a day and instant ace are two differant things. Im talking about 1st and 5th in a single flight. Thats a lot more spacific then 5 or more aircraft in a day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, that's a problem then, Gibbage. Most US sorties were a "one a day" deal. Perdomo for example, was on a long range mission from Ie Shima to Korea. A pretty long trip, I think you'll agree.

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:

Uh, that's a problem then, Gibbage. Most US sorties were a "one a day" deal. Perdomo for example, was on a long range mission from Ie Shima to Korea. A pretty long trip, I think you'll agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other ace in a days sound like they had kills before that day. By definition, it only means 5 kills in a day, but does not specify that it was there 1st and 5th. So a pilot who had 20 kill can be an "ace in a day" if he just gets 5 kills in 1 day. The reason why 1st and 5 is so special is its there 1st kill, and they are in-experienced.

Why is that special? Well the P-38 is a very complex aircraft, and mastering it takes a long time. To have an inexperienced pilot get not only his 1st kill, but his 5th kill is more special then Heartman getting 5 kills in one day in 1944.

Blutarski2004
09-03-2007, 08:07 PM
Some things not yet mentioned -

The P38 wing had something like an 8:1 aspect ratio, which greatly improved low speed maneuverability.

It also had very docile near-stall behavior.

IIRC, Ethell did an excellent article about flying the P38: in it he describes how he learned to pull it up into a steep right-hand turn until near stall, then use assymetrical engine thrust to rotate the lane about its Z-axis.

Gibbage1
09-03-2007, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But anyway, I didnt post that about the Recon Mossies as the be all and end all to the discussion. Its meant to be combined with the JFC comparisons and ratings in regard to other fighters to show that in many pilots opinons, the Mosquito was as a good of a heavy fighter and fighter/bomber as the P38, and a lot of people didnt rate the P38 very highly at all. That was the point/opinion I am trying to make. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already went over the JFC stuff. The pilots did not have much flight time, were biest twards there own aircraft, and the P-38 WAS a complex aircraft. To say it could not fair well vs single engine aircraft is rather ignorant considering all the other info we posted, and also throws mud into Bongs and McGuire's face. We have posted a LOT of info SHOWING YOU that the P-38 was IN FACT capable of handling most single engine fighters. You only posted your asumptions that it cant based on other people's openion.

As for the Mossy as a fighter, how many British fighter squads were equiped with Mk VI Mossy's? I have not heard of many escort missions performed by the Mk VI. Mostly its night fighting or raids vs ground targets.

horseback
09-03-2007, 11:47 PM
First of all, Xio has made it clear that he just doesn't comprehend how the P-38 could be competitive with single seat fighters of the time.

Second of all, being British, he's probably just read one of those Brit aviation 'novels' about the Mosquito aimed at preadolescents, which would be chock full of superlatives about the subject. I remember reading a book on the Hurricane by Paul Gallo when I was in my teens and came away wondering why the RAF wasn't still flying them during the Cold War to scare the MiGs away.

Let's put it like this in the Lightning vs Mosquito debate: The Lightning was designed as an 'interceptor' (okay, it was called that to get around an isolationist Congress' restrictions; it was a fighter), the Mosquito was designed primarily as the ultimate 'schnellbomber' (I think that's the correct term), or speed bomber, with the object of outrunning fighters rather than attempting to use defensive guns like the heavies and most medium bombers of the day.

An interceptor needed (in 1937, the time of the specification) excellent climb, speed, and heavy armament. It would also need to be able to lug around the enormous radios of the period, and enough fuel to get it in the reported vicinity of the bomber force (remember, no radar back then). Some designers thought this would require a crew of two to handle the minimum of two engines, navigation, and the radio, but Lockheed didn't think so, believing the weight needed for the extra crewman would negate the ability to meet climb and speed requirements.

The prototype flew in January of 1939, and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">its performance exceeded that of any production fighter in the world at that time, or indeed, until about the time the United States entered the war nearly three years later</span>, by which time the design had been further refined and optimized for combat according to reports from the European air war.

The Mosquito was designed as a very fast bomber and recon unit, with a secondary role as a nightfighter. None of these roles required very much in the way of maneuverability; flat out speed was the major requirement, and the aircraft was stressed accordingly. All of these jobs required a second crewman and space for fuel, and a payload of bombs or electronics/armament.

The Mossie's wooden structure was not an ideal platform for the high G antics of a day fighter; it was built for straight ahead speed, and if it took on enemy fighters, it was either a hit and run attack, or nothing. The record shows that Mossies didn't take on a point defense or 'pure' fighter role, because it was unsuited for the task.

The Lightning, on the other hand, was designed for much heavier use, lacked an internal bomb bay or provision for a second crewman, and it was always faster than the Mosquito, even the late-war versions with the Merlin 60 series engines. Considerably lighter too, something like 17,500lbs vs over 20,000 lbs for the combat-loaded Mosquito FB VI.

Now, about that conjecture regarding the British cancellation of the Lightning...

The British Aircraft Purchasing Commision ordered (in conjuction with its French equivalent) something like 500 Lightnings before the first preproduction models were completed. This was about the same time that they ordered the bomber version of the Lockheed Lodestar which became the Hudson and evolved into the Ventura in equally unheard of numbers (June 1940).

The British specified that there be no turbochargers or 'handed' engines in their version of the Lightning for two reasons: ease of logistics, and the fact that General Electric hadn't shown any indication that they were willing to produce the needed number of turbochargers at any price (in 1940, according to Bodie, they had promised to produce only 1,200 units-which would mostly go into B-17 and B-24 bombers at four per a/c).

That would have been prior to the Battle of Britain, where it was determined that altitude performance was VERY important for a fighter, which would largely eliminate any Allison powered fighter lacking a Turbocharger, since the Allison had only a single stage supercharger, and tended to anemia once over 13 to 15,000 ft. In any case, in the summer of 1941 the RAF attempted to cancel the contract and limit their purchase to three examples of the Model 322-B.

These three were delivered in March of 1942 - almost a year after the contract was cancelled (or reneged, if you talk to Lockheed). In any case, it was not cancelled because of the poor performance of the aircraft, but more likely because the RAF had re-assessed its needs and the likelihood that Lockheed could produce that number of fighters in a timely fashion, and without the turbochargers, well, what would they have done with them?.

In any case, the situation appears to have required intervention by US Government representatives to convince Lockheed from taking the British Government to court. The individuals involved on the Lockheed side appeared to Bodie to have taken a great deal of bitterness about it to their graves, and given that the British version appears to have been given great credence over the years, I don't blame them.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
09-04-2007, 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 Xiolablu3:
But anyway, I didnt post that about the Recon Mossies as the be all and end all to the discussion. Its meant to be combined with the JFC comparisons and ratings in regard to other fighters to show that in many pilots opinons, the Mosquito was as a good of a heavy fighter and fighter/bomber as the P38, and a lot of people didnt rate the P38 very highly at all. That was the point/opinion I am trying to make. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already went over the JFC stuff. The pilots did not have much flight time, were biest twards there own aircraft, and the P-38 WAS a complex aircraft. To say it could not fair well vs single engine aircraft is rather ignorant considering all the other info we posted, and also throws mud into Bongs and McGuire's face. We have posted a LOT of info SHOWING YOU that the P-38 was IN FACT capable of handling most single engine fighters. You only posted your asumptions that it cant based on other people's openion.

As for the Mossy as a fighter, how many British fighter squads were equiped with Mk VI Mossy's? I have not heard of many escort missions performed by the Mk VI. Mostly its night fighting or raids vs ground targets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats a very good point I had not thought of.

No British fighter units used the Mosquito IIRC?

You have not actually posted one test or document that I can remmeber? Thats one of hte reasons I am still pushing you. I am the only one who has posted official tests.


What I actually wrote there came out wrong. What I meant to say is that 'Many people did not rate teh P38 very highly WHEN COMPARED TO SINGLE ENGINED FIGHTERS'. Apologies.

Some gret info in there Horseback, thanks. BTW my conjecture is in no way related to the 'castrated' Lightnings. I understand that plane was not representant of the real thing.

You guys are beginning to convince me that the P38 was a 'cut above' the other twin fighters. But rather than pilot stories and conjecture mixed with your own 'p38 fan' opinions,, how about some real tests?

Bremspropeller
09-04-2007, 07:27 AM
Gib, the Mossie was designed as twin-placed bomber.
The 110 was designed as three-placed destroyer.

The Lightning was only single-placed and was a high-performance fighter right from the start (which shows Kelly Johnson's brilliance).
That contributed a lot to it's performance.

Comparing those three birds is like comparing apples with oranges.

Xiolablu3
09-04-2007, 07:33 AM
Brems, what is a 3 place destroyer?

Bremspropeller
09-04-2007, 07:37 AM
EDIT: lol, my dumbness.

Twin-seater. Was only crewed with three guys during nightfighter-missions.

Bewolf
09-04-2007, 07:52 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

Reading this, and then applying it to the 38, I can fully understand this plane beeing superiour to other 2 engine planes. The single seater layout makes a huge difference in performance compared to 2 or 3 seater aircraft.

I think it's not so much the 38 beeing superiour per se, but having a much better weight ratio. All the other 2 engine planes, including the later and much better Me410, suffered from that.

I agree that that it is hard to believe the P38 was completly en par with respective single engine fighters, but I fully believe it was on top of every other two engine fighter of its day.

faustnik
09-04-2007, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I agree that that it is hard to believe the P38 was completly en par with respective single engine fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, try to think less about super sharp dogfighting maneuvers and more about combat effectiveness. The P-38 was very fast, faster than anything in the PTO and as fast as the LW fighters in the ETO. The P-38 combined this speed with heavy, concentrated firepower. In actaul combat, most kills are made from the bounce, with little need for rapid aerobatic maneuvers. This is what made planes like the P-38, P-47 and Fw190 so effective.

In addition, the P-38, despite it's bulk, had an ace up its sleeve if it had to enter a dogfight. All the high power single engined fighters siffered from high torque effects at low speeds and high power settings. The torque made the aircraft difficult to control. With its counter rotating props, the P-38 retained control at full power and low speed. So, if it had too, the P-38 could hold its own even in the sustained dogfight.

In comparison to the other Allied fighters in Africa, P-40s, P-39s, Spitfires and Hurricanes, the P-38 brought a clear advantage in speed, range and firepower. These advantages made it more "combat effective" than anything else in the Allied inventory when it entered the fight.

Bewolf
09-04-2007, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I agree that that it is hard to believe the P38 was completly en par with respective single engine fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, try to think less about super sharp dogfighting maneuvers and more about combat effectiveness. The P-38 was very fast, faster than anything in the PTO and as fast as the LW fighters in the ETO. The P-38 combined this speed with heavy, concentrated firepower. In actaul combat, most kills are made from the bounce, with little need for rapid aerobatic maneuvers. This is what made planes like the P-38, P-47 and Fw190 so effective.

In addition, the P-38, despite it's bulk, had an ace up its sleeve if it had to enter a dogfight. All the high power single engined fighters siffered from high torque effects at low speeds and high power settings. The torque made the aircraft difficult to control. With its counter rotating props, the P-38 retained control at full power and low speed. So, if it had too, the P-38 could hold its own even in the sustained dogfight.

In comparison to the other Allied fighters in Africa, P-40s, P-39s, Spitfires and Hurricanes, the P-38 brought a clear advantage in speed, range and firepower. These advantages made it more "combat effective" than anything else in the Allied inventory when it entered the fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completly agreed to this post here. That is a reason why I love the P-38, especially on Pacific Maps. It's untouchable if flown right.

But the argument was about turn radius here, afaik. And I seriously do have a problem imagening the P38 dancing with Spits and 109s on equal ground. In this regard I am with Xio, especially as he is right, there hardly is any documentation yet.

Korolov1986
09-04-2007, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The other ace in a days sound like they had kills before that day. By definition, it only means 5 kills in a day, but does not specify that it was there 1st and 5th. So a pilot who had 20 kill can be an "ace in a day" if he just gets 5 kills in 1 day. The reason why 1st and 5 is so special is its there 1st kill, and they are in-experienced.

Why is that special? Well the P-38 is a very complex aircraft, and mastering it takes a long time. To have an inexperienced pilot get not only his 1st kill, but his 5th kill is more special then Heartman getting 5 kills in one day in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When "Ace in a Day" is tagged onto a pilot - especially USAAF pilots - it will generally refer to their first to fifth kills in a single mission. This probably goes double for USN and USMC pilots operating from carriers. Take into account that the USN, USMC, and USAAF rarely flew the same squadrons/groups more than once a day, unlike other air forces; in addition, keep in mind the distance flown for most of these sorties prohibited their chances of being able to fly more than one sortie a day.

Stiletto-
09-04-2007, 05:08 PM
I was trying to find on the net the report of the mock dogfight of a Spitfire vs a P-38.

And while I found it in this archived post http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html There are lots of other good tidbits of info in here as well, my biggest gripe would be a lack of sources on much of the information, but it appears this site archived these posts from reputable sources and the first post is from 1996 when the internet was in its infancy and arm-chair pilots trolling off about "uberlegend" aircraft stories was close to nill.

The pilot testamony is good, a Pilot who flew the P-40, P-38 and then P-51 towards the end of the war, says he would have more kills in his P-38, he prefered it. How many pilots would prefer a Mosquito over a Spitfire or a BF-110 over an BF-109? The mock dogfight report is interesting as well, I have read it before from other sources.. When the P-38 rode its stall it could "dip" inside the Spitfires turning circle, the Spitfire could not evade the P-38 in this test. 75 people witinessed this test. Now the P-38 pilot was very good, he new the plane very well, it doesn't state the talent of the Spitfire pilot, but I don't know why you wouldn't put one of your best pilots in, certainly if you knew the opponent was a very good pilot.

I think from all the testimony on the aircraft, it was very capable of mixing it up with late-war single engine fighters in the hands of an experienced pilot who knows how to get the most out of the bird. It is continually stated and prefered by pilot accounts over the P-39 and P-40 and in cases more so than late war USAAF figters. Instead of comparing the P-38 to twin engined figher bombers, and more late war contemporary fighters, how does the P-39 and P-40 compare to the two groups of planes? I don't think anyone can contest that the P-40 and P-39 is regaurded as worse than the P-38 (in real life accounts).

Better than all other early and mid-war USAAF fighters, pilot accounts of preffering it over other late war fighters and succesful trials again contemporary singe-engined fighters should all put this as a case closed, that the Lightning in experienced hands can more than hold its own against it's contemporary late war single-engined counterparts.

luftluuver
09-04-2007, 05:54 PM
Is this from the JFC fly off?

Best all-around cockpit:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Worst cockpit:

Most votes - P-38

Nicest arrangement of engine controls:

Most votes - P-51
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most convenient gear and flap controls:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 tied for last in votes

Most comfortable cockpit:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around visibility:

Most votes - P-51
P-38 received no votes

Best all-around armor:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes

Best for overload takeoff from small area:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 tied for 5th place

Nicest harmonization of control forces:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 received no votes

Best ailerons at 350mph:

Most votes - P-51
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best ailerons at 100mph:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 9th place

Best elevator:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted 12th place

Best rudder:

Most votes - F7F
P-38 voted 6th place

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted last place

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 voted 3rd place

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted last place

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes

Best fighter bomber:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 voted last place

Best strafer:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 voted 6th place

Stiletto-
09-04-2007, 06:15 PM
No, this was a trial in Late Winter of '44 where the Spitfire and P-38 had a simulated engagement after a head-on pass at 5,000 ft (I believe the altitude was this low so that the spectators on the ground could have a good view of the engagement).

Gibbage1
09-04-2007, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You have not actually posted one test or document that I can remmeber? Thats one of hte reasons I am still pushing you. I am the only one who has posted official tests.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You only posted the JSF stuff, thats clearly biest. I posted quotes from two war time trials from early G models showing it can turn inside many single engine fighters of the day. Did you miss that? Or just ignore that? Take a look through Mike Williams Spitfire Performance page. He has a P-38 section.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You guys are beginning to convince me that the P38 was a 'cut above' the other twin fighters. But rather than pilot stories and conjecture mixed with your own 'p38 fan' opinions,, how about some real tests? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, we posted them, and it seems you promply ignored them.

As for the "therie" that a twin engine aircraft cant take on a single engine aircraft, take a look at modern day fighters. F-14, F-15, and F-22. All 3 are twin engine fighters, and will kick the snot out of any modern day single engine aircraft up and down the block.

Gibbage1
09-04-2007, 08:22 PM
For Xio, I will repost the test's I quoted. This time in bold so he wont miss it again.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE 6 March 1943"

"For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and fire power, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station. Types tested include the P-47, P-51, P-40F and P-39D-1. "
</span>

Note that its a P-38F, without combat flaps.
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">
"SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38G TYPE AIRPLANE AS COMPARED TO THE P-38F 3 May 1943"

"c. The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180? in 360? circle) due to maneuver flaps. "
</span>

So, the G was "much better then the P-38F" due too combat flaps, but even without, it have even the P-40, P-39 and P-51 a run for the money and was considered "the best production line fighter tested to date". The P-40 and P-39 are rather good turning aircraft. Maybe a P-38 out turning a 109 is not as far fetched as you may think?

There was also a trial of a P-38F vs a Spit (V I think) were the Spit was only able to turn "slightly" better then the P-38F. Again, thats WITHOUT the combat flaps that help it turn much better. Also, in the test above, they noted that the P-38 was at a loss due too slow onset of roll to get into the turn, but even with this, it still was able to compete with the single engine fighters.

It was a very remarkable twin engine fighter, thats for sure!

Enforcer572005
09-04-2007, 08:47 PM
I believe P-38 pilots used differential throttle to tighten the turn radius, which was kinda tricky and best used by pilots who really knew the P-38. I have yet to be able to duplicate this, but I think I could with the right throttle set up. Would require alot more testing than I have time to do.

Gibbage1
09-04-2007, 08:52 PM
I dont think the FM in IL2 has the capability to simulate that. IL2 was NEVER intended to even have multi-engine support. It was sort of cludged in for FB. I have spoken to Oleg about this, and he said things will be considered when building BoB, so we should see proper multi-engine support in BoB. Maybe then, we can see if we can duplicate advanced P-38 tactics like the Clover Leaf, or differential throttle.

R_Target
09-04-2007, 09:10 PM
Best all-around cockpit:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito received no votes

Worst cockpit:

Most votes - P-38
2nd most votes- Mosquito

Nicest arrangement of engine controls:

Most votes - P-51
P-38-1%
Mosquito-3%

Most convenient gear and flap controls:

Most votes - F8F
P-38-2%
Mosquito-3%

Most comfortable cockpit:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito received no votes

Best all-around visibility:

Most votes - P-51
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito received no votes

Best all-around armor:

Most votes - P-47
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito received no votes

Best for overload takeoff from small area:

Most votes - F6F
P-38 tied for 5th place
Mosquito received no votes

Nicest harmonization of control forces:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito-6%

Best ailerons at 350mph:

Most votes - P-51
P-38-19%
Mosquito-6%

Best ailerons at 100mph:

Most votes - F6F
P-38-3%
Mosquito received no votes

Best elevator:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38-2%
Mosquito-2%

Best rudder:

Most votes - F7F
P-38-6%
Mosquito-13%

Fighter exhibiting nicest all-around stability:

Most votes - F6F
P-38-1%
Mosquito-2%

Fighter appearing to have best control and stability in a dive:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38-2%
Mosquito-3%

Best characteristics at 5mph above stall:

Most votes - F6F
P-38-7%
Mosquito received no votes

Best all-around fighter above 25,000 feet:

Most votes - P-47
P-38-1%
Mosquito received no votes

Best all-around fighter below 25,000 feet:

Most votes - F8F
P-38 received no votes
Mosquito-2%

Best fighter bomber:

Most votes - F4U-1
P-38-5%
Mosquito-14%

Best strafer:

Most votes - P-47
P-38-3%
Mosquito received no votes

Best instrument and night flying qualities:

P-38-5%
Mosquito-3%

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-04-2007, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hes just one of those people who thinks they know it all and that spews a bunch of cr*p out of his mouth, criticises everything, without actually having any worthy answers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm why does this sound so familiar? Oh thats right, its about 85% of the community who post here and spam that chat bar in HL. Several of them have already made an appearance in this very thread. I never knew that the worlds greatest minds spent most of their time playing video games and posting in video game forums. Im truly blown away! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

S!

RetiredRacer
09-05-2007, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RetiredRacer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recently picked up the first season set. One of the best parts of this set are the air combat stories being told by the real pilots themself's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm in Australia but can you tell where (anywhere in the world) I can purchase this set
please!!!!

Thank you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Googled History Channel, then selected Shows, then
dogfights, then Buy DVDs and it took me to this:

http://store.aetv.com/html/subject/index.jhtml?id=cat2220004



cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The poblem I have is they will not ship out of North America and thay do not have a shop anywhere else in the world

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 05:16 AM
Can someone tell me what <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">biest</span> and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">therie</span> is.

R_Target
09-05-2007, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Can someone tell me what <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">biest</span> and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">therie</span> is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got the first one, biest:

http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/b_3d/beast.gif

Not sure about the other one.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Just my bad spelling. Still, Xio seems rather quiet lately. Or is he waiting for my post too be buried again so he can say he has not seen any reports again?

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 12:50 PM
[EDIT : Just seen your post above, Gibbage. I have been at work all today and got in late last night. I apologise for missing the reports you posted]


Thanks for the info guys, I truly dont mean to antagonise anyone, but it was rather a challenge, from me to the guys that know the P38, to try and convince me that the P38 :-

a: Was a cut above other twin engined fighters

b: that it could compete in manouverability with single engined fighters, particularly the Bf109.


You guys have just about convinced me of a:, but I still think the Bf109 and most single engined fighters will have the edge over it as far as manouverability goes.

As for modern jets, there are so many other factors in todays aeroplanes, they are very complicated pieces of kit with all sorts of gadgets. But I still see the same general rule applied. Small and light = Manouverable, GENRALLY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Weight_Fighter

Think about the little F5 vs the F14 or F15.

I also believe the F16 is a much better turner and close in dogfighter than the larger double engined F15.

I know the rule doesnt apply to everything today, but in general, you look at a fly and a sparrow. Or a Sparrow and a Vulture. Small and light usually turns much better. I realise this thinking is flawed, and there are lots of exceptions, but in GENRAL, I am quite sure its the case. See John Boyds theory of Manouverability in the Lightweight Fighter link above. Both of the fighters in this program turned in to the excellent F16 and F18 (was the YF17) in service in the US right now and export classics.

I will have to see a lot more evidence before I believe the P38 was a s manouverable as the top single engined fighters like the Bf109/Spitfire/P51/P40 (NOT just talking about turning circle!). I am not of course ruling it out, however, as that would be ridiculous - to assume I already know everything. SO I am always ready to change my mind with new evidence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

You guys have just about convinced me of a:, but I still think the Bf109 and most single engined fighters will have the edge over it as far as manouverability goes.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This I agree with. In roll, a single engine fighter would be better. Fighting in a P-38 vs a Fw-190 is very hard when they roll alot. There are things P-38 pilots can do to help, but not fix the problem and in tight manuvers, roll is critical. On the otherhand, it seems that turn is not a big advantage for single engine aircraft over the P-38. Most people, when confronted with the P-38 see its size, and think they can just use turn to beat it. Big error, and im sure it lead to the death of many Luftwaffe pilots. Then they started to find its weaknesses, and started diving away from P-38's. A manuver that worked till the L series. Also, the L helped the roll problem at high speed. Did not fix it, as there was still lag to get the weight of the engines moving, but it helped alot.

But one thing is clear, there was not many twin engine fighters in WWII, and only 1 really successfull one. As people pointed out, the Mossy was not a pure fighter or intercepter, and the 110 was an attack aircraft. The Japanese had very few twins, and the Russians had none. For such a big heavy twin engine aircraft to even compete with a light twin engine aircraft half or even 1/3'ed its weight is a remarkable engineering feet.

Here is some of the test's I quoted.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html#p38-2338

faustnik
09-05-2007, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But one thing is clear, there was not many twin engine fighters in WWII, and only 1 really successfull one. As people pointed out, the Mossy was not a pure fighter or intercepter, and the 110 was an attack aircraft. The Japanese had very few twins, and the Russians had none. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought he Bf110 was conceived as a long range fighter? It just wasn't very successful.

The Best LW twin was rumored to be the Fw187, but, it never reached full production status.

The Me262 was the a fantastic twin conceived along the same lines and the P-38. In a lot of ways they were very similar.

The Soviets had the Pe-3.

The real question is not P-38 vs. Bf109 or Fw190, it is P-38 vs. P-47 or P-51. For ETO escorting and air-superiority operations, I can't see the P-38 being able to equal the Mustang. The P-51 is just too good, with fantastic performance, excellent high-speed maneuverability, cruising speed, search view and range. For air-to-ground operations, the P-38 certainly rivaled the P-47, and was superior to the Mustang.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I thought he Bf110 was conceived as a long range fighter? It just wasn't very successful.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Mossy was conceived as a bomber. Things change, but the 110 cant hold a candle too the P-38 as a fighter, or anything for that matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Best LW twin was rumored to be the Fw187, but, it never reached full production status.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its an interesting design, intended to compete with the Mossy. I need to do some more research on its design, but there is not much to go off of. P-38 has claimed 1 Fw-187 kill in North Afrika though, so it seems it did enter combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Me262 was the a fantastic twin conceived along the same lines and the P-38. In a lot of ways they were very similar.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me-262 is a good twin engine aircraft, but can it really be considered a good fighter? 11 hours of flight time between overhauls, not very nimble, short flight time. It had its speed and firepower yes, but P-51's plucked them out of the sky EASY due too there short range. Like I said, short rage is a liability for a fighter. The P-51's would follow the Me-262 too its base, and pounce once the landing gear was down. That would not be possible without the Me-262's short legs, and things would of been much differant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Soviets had the Pe-3.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the Pe-3 a twin engine fighter, or a bomber that could fight? If the latter, then we can consider the B-25 a twin engine fighter. There are many pilot accounts that the B-25 was very manuverable once the bombs were away, and many pilots were credited with fighter kills using the B-25's forward guns! I just dont think it makes it a fighter.

Looking up some info on the Pe-3, it seems just a fighter conversion of the Pe-2. Sort of like stripping down a B-25, or the Mossy IV. It was still slower then the P-38 by about 100mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The real question is not P-38 vs. Bf109 or Fw190, it is P-38 vs. P-47 or P-51. For ETO escorting and air-superiority operations, I can't see the P-38 being able to equal the Mustang. The P-51 is just too good, with fantastic performance, excellent high-speed maneuverability, cruising speed, search view and range. For air-to-ground operations, the P-38 certainly rivaled the P-47, and was superior to the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a pure fighter, I think the P-51 served better in the ETO due too how much easier it was to master, and service. The 8th AF seemed to agree. P-38 did have its roles though, and was the only Allied aircraft to fly cover over D-day. I also agree that for ground attack, it was better then the P-47, but not by much. In the Pacific, it was the pure winner by far. Having two engines purring is very southing too the pilot over the Pacific. Its speed advantage made up for its lack of roll (vs German) and lack of turn vs Japanese.

faustnik
09-05-2007, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Its an interesting design, intended to compete with the Mossy. I need to do some more research on its design, but there is not much to go off of. P-38 has claimed 1 Fw-187 kill in North Afrika though, so it seems it did enter combat.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw-187 in NA??? Designed to compete with the Mossie??? Where do you get that?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me-262 is a good twin engine aircraft, but can it really be considered a good fighter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Like the P-38, it was difficult to master, but, was far superior in performance to any other fighter in service. Like the P-38 it was designed as an interceptor. Like I said many similarities.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Was the Pe-3 a twin engine fighter, or a bomber that could fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was developed as a fighter version of the Pe-2. The closest Allied comparison would be the Mossie.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its speed advantage made up for its lack of roll (vs German). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The P-38 had a speed advantage over LW fighters?

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 03:09 PM
Faustnik, Gibbage and Horseback, check your pms http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have sent you guys a present...


I think Gibbage is confusing the Ta154 - Moskito that was a German copy of the Mosquito, with the FW187.

I actually thought you all mant the FW189 as it has a twin boom like the P38 :-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Focke_Wulf_Fw189.jpg

Here is the FW187 :-

http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187-7.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187-1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187-17.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187.htm


Interesting plane. I had never heard of it until Faustnik mentioned it, always confusing it for the FW189 when I saw 'FW187' written down.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 03:34 PM
My bad. It WAS the FW-189 that was shot down over NA.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LUW1BCh4sNAC&pg=PA26&l...MBN7fyM0Uz8#PPA25,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LUW1BCh4sNAC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22p+38%22+%22ju+52%22&source=web&ots=f7EGGVPfjs&sig=EL2FwhaCOt_9eTNPMBN7fyM0Uz8#PPA25,M1)

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 03:36 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">
The Best LW twin was rumored to be the Fw187, but, it never reached full production status.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its an interesting design, intended to compete with the Mossy. I need to do some more research on its design, but there is not much to go off of. P-38 has claimed 1 Fw-187 kill in North Afrika though, so it seems it did enter combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better do some research on the Fw187. The Germans must have had a crystal ball for the 187 design began in 1936 and flew in the summer of 1937 well before any Mossie. One of the pre-production A-0s even claimed three 4 engine bombers in Oct 1943.

Now the Fw189 is the most likely a/c for the claim but it was a tactical recce a/c and certainly was not in competition with the Mossie.

faustnik
09-05-2007, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Now the Fw189 is the most likely a/c for the claim but it was a tactical recce a/c and certainly was not in competition with the Mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had to think of LW a/c that was similar to the Mossie, I'd say Ar234. I can't think of anything else that's in the ballpark???

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2007, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-38 had a speed advantage over LW fighters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

S!

faustnik
09-05-2007, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-38 had a speed advantage over LW fighters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please elaborate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Yes. Like the P-38, it was difficult to master, but, was far superior in performance to any other fighter in service. Like the P-38 it was designed as an interceptor. Like I said many similarities.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me-163 also had far superior performance to any other fighter in service, but I would not consider it a good fighter for the same reason I dont consider the Me-262 a good fighter. Due too its design, it had such amazingly limited use to the war. Once the P-51's developed tactics to combat both aircraft, the kill to loss ratio of the two aircraft plummeted to being one of the worst of the war.

As for the lack of roll vs speed comment, it came out totally wrong. There is no great speed advantage vs German aircraft, but it did lack roll Vs German aircraft. I really need to proof read my post's. Its lack of a good speed advantage, and roll disadvantage really hurt its dogfighting in the ETO.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 03:49 PM
As far as I know the P38 had an excellent climb rate. It was around Spitfire IX and Bf109 levels wasnt it? I have always believed that 3 of the fastest climbers of 1943-1944 were the Spitfire IX, Bf109G1-G4 and the P38J-L? Maybe someone can put me right if that is not the case.

Climb rate really help in a fighter, particularly close in fighting.


IMO the Me262 was rushed in to service because of the desperate situation. It was an excellent plane, but it really needed better materials for the engines before it went into service.

However the Germans did not have the correct materials at the time, so it was deemed more important just to get it flying in any case.

Not denying its an EXCELLENT plane, however I believe if this had been in the allies inventory in mid 1944, or Germany had not been so desperate, then the Me262 would have come a bit later, once the engines were properly sorted out.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 03:51 PM
Slight speed advantage yes.

P-38J ~414MPH
P-38L ~440MPH at 72"
BF109G6 ~398MPH
FW-190A8 ~408, 428 with boost.
A6M2 ~330MPH

Numbers from Wiki. Im sure Faust has better 190 numbers.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 03:53 PM
Add to the list

Spitfire IX - 408 mph

Spitfire IX Recon (no guns or armour) - 422mph

Spitfire XIV - 439mph

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 03:54 PM
The P-38 had a climb of around 4000-4500FPM depending on the sources. The K4 and Spits had around 5000FPM I think. It would catch a 190 climbing in its sleep, but a 109 would give it a good run for its money. It all depended on the speed and angle. The P-38 had a much better Zoom climb then the 109, and pilots spoke about how 109's would try and climb away, but they would catch them at the apex of the climb since the lack of torque allowed them better controle at near stall speeds. The 109 would torque over, but the P-38 would be in perfect controle, and bag the 109.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Add to the list

Spitfire IX - 408

Spitfire XIV - 448 mph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Typically, P-38's were not shooting at Spits.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 03:57 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 Xiolablu3:
Add to the list

Spitfire IX - 408

Spitfire XIV - 448 mph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Typically, P-38's were not shooting at Spits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was just a general top speed list, I didnt notice it was P38 vs German - ooops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PS I edited the top speed of the MkXIV as I think 448mph was a bit optomistic from the source I used.

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Interesting link Gib.

What caught my eye was the 82FG interception of the Ju52s escorted by 109s. The 82cd still lost 4 a/c dispite outnumbering the escorting 109s.

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 04:11 PM
No. It was in reply to Faust questioning any speed advantage the P-38 had over German aircraft. I was just demonstrating that there was a SLIGHT speed advantage, but a big one in the Pacific vs the Zero. As for top list, it would be filled with rare exotic aircraft that got very little combat time like the K4, P-51H, P-47M/N and the likes. Not very usefull in this thread.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2007, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Slight speed advantage yes.

P-38J ~414MPH
P-38L ~440MPH at 72"
BF109G6 ~398MPH
FW-190A8 ~408, 428 with boost.
A6M2 ~330MPH

Numbers from Wiki. Im sure Faust has better 190 numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got numbers stating the J is faster then the L. Got the J at 420mph. Most German aircraft top out at 408mph until you get in the late rarely used stuff. By that I mean that a typical engagement for the P-38 will result in it being the faster of the two. I have never seen numbers putting an Anton above the 408mph mark. There will probably be something out there somewhere but more references then not will agree.

S!

S!

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Interesting link Gib.

What caught my eye was the 82FG interception of the Ju52s escorted by 109s. The 82cd still lost 4 a/c dispite outnumbering the escorting 109s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That encounter is lacking a lot of important information to make any conclusions on how the P-38 performed. #1, it does not state how many P-38's there were. #2, it says 20 109's and Ju-52. I cant tell weather that means 20 109's AND 20 Ju-52's or 20 aircraft total. #3, it does not state how the 4 aircraft were lost. Just said they failed to return to base.

Lets look at what it does say.

9 Ju-52 transports down
8 109 escorts down
loss of 4 P-38's.

That, I think, is a rather good score! The P-38 squad eather totally wiped out the formation, or shot down half, for a minimul loss. Also, the Ju-52's did have defensive guns, and the P-38 was a big target, but apperantly the 109 escorts were decimated no matter how you look at it. So not only did the P-38 decimate the Ju-52's, but its escorts also. Do you have any Battle reports of a 109 doing a similar mission and NOT taking any losses? Im not talking about a quick shot at bombers and then running, im talking about staying around to fight the escorts, like the P-38's did. You dont score 8 escorts by doing a quick pass at the Ju's, thats for sure!

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I got numbers stating the J is faster then the L. Got the J at 420mph. Most German aircraft top out at 408mph until you get in the late rarely used stuff. By that I mean that a typical engagement for the P-38 will result in it being the faster of the two. I have never seen numbers putting an Anton above the 408mph mark. There will probably be something out there somewhere but more references then not will agree.

S!

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The J was faster then the L if the L just used the J's 60" boost, but the L's engines were rated at 72". They were officially cleared by Allison for the 72", and did NOT require high grade fuel. Hence Oleg's "L Late". L at 72" will do about 440-444MPH. Bodie said 444, but im going with a lower number. J's were clocked at 421MPH using 60" of boost.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html

Also
" a. In level flight operation a gain of 17 MPH can be obtained by increasing the allowable power from 60 to 70" Hg. (W.E.R.). "

Again, thats a J in this test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-28392.html

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Me-163 also had far superior performance to any other fighter in service, but I would not consider it a good fighter for the same reason I dont consider the Me-262 a good fighter. Due too its design, it had such amazingly limited use to the war. Once the P-51's developed tactics to combat both aircraft, the kill to loss ratio of the two aircraft plummeted to being one of the worst of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From what I could find only 10 Me163s were lost and that included take-off and landing accidents.

The 163 was not a fighter but an intercepter. It did have some success vs the P-51 with 3 shot down from the 352FG on Aug 5 1944.

So how many 262s did the P-51 shoot down compared to the number of P-51s shot down by the 262?

Daiichidoku
09-05-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-38 had a climb of around 4000-4500FPM depending on the sources. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also, the 38s best climb speed was 140-180 mph, no difference, giving him flexability in the climb, esp useful when your enemy's best climb speed is 160mph, for example

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
So how many 262s did the P-51 shoot down compared to the number of P-51s shot down by the 262? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, but im sure you have the numbers. considering the prime target of the 262 was the bombers, I would not think they bagged many P-51's. On the otherhand, Chuck Yager demonstrated the 262's prime weakness rather well.

faustnik
09-05-2007, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought it was just a general top speed list, I didnt notice it was P38 vs German - ooops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a selective top speed list, it demonstrates nothing relavent. Notice that late LW fighters like the Fw190D and Bf109G6AS, G-10 and K are not included. P-38s was similar in speed to their LW contemporaries, they enjoyed no clear speed advantage.

Bremspropeller
09-05-2007, 04:50 PM
The 187 is just another example of what a d1ckhead Goering was http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

faustnik
09-05-2007, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 187 is just another example of what a d1ckhead Goering was http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt the Fw187 would have fared any better than the Bf110 against Spitfires and Hurricanes in the BoB. The Bf110 was a heavier a/c which probably meant greater flexibility in loadouts for the night fighter and attack role, were it did find some success.

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 05:02 PM
Put any twist you want to put on it Gib. If had been 20 a/c each it would have said 40 a/c. I forgot that rl gunners were snipers like they are in this game.

Btw, Fw190s claimed some 43 P-38s in NA. I can only find 1 claim by a P-38 on a 190.

faustnik
09-05-2007, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
As for the lack of roll vs speed comment, it came out totally wrong. There is no great speed advantage vs German aircraft, but it did lack roll Vs German aircraft. I really need to proof read my post's. Its lack of a good speed advantage, and roll disadvantage really hurt its dogfighting in the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, got it Gib, I agree. The fact that the P-38 was as fast as it's LW adversaries at many heights, and faster at some, was important. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

faustnik
09-05-2007, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Btw, Fw190s claimed some 43 P-38s in NA. I can only find 1 claim by a P-38 on a 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw190 in North Africa has great cross-referenced kill/claim reports. I can check that later. I thought the actual P-38/Fw190 kill comparison was fairly close, but, I'd have to look at it again.

Bremspropeller
09-05-2007, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I doubt the Fw187 would have fared any better than the Bf110 against Spitfires and Hurricanes in the BoB. The Bf110 was a heavier a/c which probably meant greater flexibility in loadouts for the night fighter and attack role, were it did find some success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they got a V-type that was 120 kph faster than the Hurricane - without fancy tunes, but a stock engine.
Test pilots found the plane to turn just as well as the 109 and roll almost as well.

Sounds like it had a lot more potential than the 110 in the fighter-role.
Those guys who flew it in Norway had a reason why they wanted the 187 to be produced in large numbers.

Kind of reminds me of the 190, when the RLM wanted to erase the program - despite it's huge potential. Thankfully, the test-pilots did not allow that.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2007, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought it was just a general top speed list, I didnt notice it was P38 vs German - ooops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a selective top speed list, it demonstrates nothing relavent. Notice that late LW fighters like the Fw190D and Bf109G6AS, G-10 and K are not included. P-38s was similar in speed to their LW contemporaries, they enjoyed no clear speed advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They enjoyed a speed advantage over the aircraft that it would most likely enage. Unless of course you have information saying different.

S!

luftluuver
09-05-2007, 05:45 PM
That was my source faustnik.

USAAF claims of 262s

4th fg 7
20th fg 5 1/2
31st fg 7
52nd fg 14
78th fg 11
325th fg 1
332nd fg 3
339th fg 14
352nd fg 5 1/2
353rd fg 6
354th fg 4
355th fg 4
356th fg 2
357th fg 18
359th fg 5
361st fg 6
364th fg 1 1/2
479th fg 5

there were 118 1/2 Me 262's shot down

faustnik
09-05-2007, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

They enjoyed a speed advantage over the aircraft that it would most likely enage. Unless of course you have information saying different.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most likely models of P-38s encountered in the escort role over 20,000 feet were the P-38G and H models. On paper, these models might show some speed advantage over the LW fighters, but, in reality, they could not use top power because of issue with the wing intercoolers. This was a serious issue, and resulted in a shift replacing P-38s with P-47s and P-51s in the escort role.

The P-38J and Ls were mainly used in the ETO by the 9th AF in the ground support role. At low altitude, the P-38 had no speed advantage over the Antons. On paper, the advantage was to the Fw190, but, in reality, they were very probably very similar.

Jaws2002
09-05-2007, 06:22 PM
From the tactical trails of Faber's captured FW-190A3, vs a P-38F flown by and experienced USAAF pilot:



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/vsP-38.jpg

Gibbage1
09-05-2007, 07:19 PM
The 8th AF used a lot of J's and were getting them in August 43. So your comparing late 45 aircraft to 42 aircraft?

P-38J-5-LO's started delivery in Aug 43 with 210 delivered by April 44.
P-38J-10-LO started delivery in Oct 43 with 790 delivered by Dec 43!
P-38J-15-LO, 1400! delivered between Dec 43 and May 44
P-38J-20-LO, 350 deliverred between May 44-June 44.

Thats 2750 P-38J's DELIVERED before MID 44. Thats not including 210 J-25LO's delivered between June and Nov 44.