PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: P-38 roll rates



XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 11:34 PM
I wanted to post this BEFORE the pay add-on is released with the P-38s. Since you are modeling the P-38J and L, with boosted ailerons, the roll rates should be consistent with this chart. Please note, the speeds are True Air Speed.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/boostroll.jpg


Credits: F4UDOA at Aces High site.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/08/0302:40AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 11:34 PM
I wanted to post this BEFORE the pay add-on is released with the P-38s. Since you are modeling the P-38J and L, with boosted ailerons, the roll rates should be consistent with this chart. Please note, the speeds are True Air Speed.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/boostroll.jpg


Credits: F4UDOA at Aces High site.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/08/0302:40AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:24 AM
She better be able to dive like a bat outa hell is all I say. Only the JUG could best her dive speed.
S~
47|FC
51|FC

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:46 AM
The P-38 has difficulty in diving. Design flaw.

..

As for the rolls, I'd like to see one of each: boosted in the Ls, and un-boosted version with the Js. (come to think of it, why would they want to model J and L when they are largely simular in very many aspects? A F/G for mid war, and a J/L for late war.. could have been a better choice IMO).





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

ZG77_Nagual
10-08-2003, 01:14 AM
I think it's roll onset where we'll still have some trouble in the late 39 Early J did not have the boost.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


Message Edited on 10/07/0308:16PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 01:19 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I think it's roll onset where we'll still have some
- trouble in the late 39 Early J did not have the
- boost.
-
- Message Edited on 10/07/03 08:16PM by
- ZG77_Nagual


A delay in roll at low speed was an issue for some pilots. However, at moderate to higher speeds is was much less.

The curious thing is why Lockheed "corrected" the speeds to TAS. Every other roll chart I've seen as the speed in IAS.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:57 AM
rgr that we gotta get the kinks out now before they release the p38. and isnt the p38 the best climbing fighter of ww2? its got two engines and about 4000 horsepower correct?

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:16 AM
"rgr that we gotta get the kinks out now before they release the p38. and isnt the p38 the best climbing fighter of ww2? its got two engines and about 4000 horsepower correct?"

However, it's also got two fuselages, weight of the two engines and two props, and with almost double the size in length and width of some smaller planes. The P-38, is larger and heavier than the P-47.

Nope, it's not the best climbing fighter of the WW2. Probably the best climbing WW2 US aircraft, though(at least, among the fighters that entered extensive service in combat). Also, the neutralized torque, may mean some interesting advantages in tight combat maneuvering, overall.










Message Edited on 10/08/0302:18AM by Cathary

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:57 AM
Do they have a chart for the L-5-LO? I think that's the one we're getting.

Oh, and the P-38L-5-LO could reach 20,000 ft. with a takeoff weight of 17,500 in seven minutes. Not the fastest climb, but it's up there!

Also, engines developed 1,600hp at max power, 1,100 at 30,000ft. Normal combat weight of about 8.5 tons.

We're not talking about 109-like climb here, but it'll beat a lot of aircraft in a climb. Just don't do a immeliman... LOL!

Also, the big thing about dive - compressability. Ugh. Might not be a problem at low alt though.

Hope the dive brakes are controllable as well, the dive brakes were manually operated AFAIK.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:10 AM
*raises eyebrow*

Can this thread be classified as "pre-emptive whining" ?

Hehehehe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If I were a Oleg, I would feel hounded somewhat when viewing this forum.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 07:04 AM
Considering how bad the P-47 is, it has its merits.

Bully_Lang wrote:
- *raises eyebrow*
-
- Can this thread be classified as "pre-emptive
- whining" ?
-
- Hehehehe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- If I were a Oleg, I would feel hounded somewhat when
- viewing this forum.
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 01:34 PM
RedDeth wrote:
- And isnt the p38 the best climbing
- fighter of ww2?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is no. The P38's climb rate was
around 3500fpm, which puts it ahead of the 109G
and Spits I-IX (2500-3000fpm), but possibly (figures are
disputed) behind the 109K4 and F8F (4500fpm). It's
about the same as a Spitfire XIV, maybe with a slight
advantage to the Spitfire XIV.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 01:39 PM
The contra rotating props did give an advantage in turns at low speeds and altitudes. Martin Caidin's book on the Lightning qouted several pilots from the PTO about this. They used tactic against Zeros when caught low and slow. ! notch of flaps and then a tight left turn. They would then begin a slight climb while still turning. If the Zero driver tried to follow or pull enough lead to get a shot he would stall and spin in. Zeros did not have a combat flaps setting. Their flaps were designed T/O and landing only.

AFAIK only Kawasaki fighters (Ki-61 Hien, Ki-100, and Ki-84 Hayate) had flaps designed to be used in combat. The Ki-84 Hayate's flaps were one of the innovations that made it such a dangerous opponent. With flaps up it was very fast. Flaps down gave it the ability to turn and burn with the best of them. The P-38's combat flap (Thanks Kelly Johnson) was similar but didnt have as many positions as the Kawasaki ones.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 01:54 PM
viperUSAF wrote:
-
-
- AFAIK only Kawasaki fighters (Ki-61 Hien, Ki-100,
- and Ki-84 Hayate) had flaps designed to be used in
- combat.
-
-
-

The Ki-61 was made by Kawasaki,

the Ki-100 was made by Kawasaki,

BUT

the Ki-84 was made by Nakajima.


The Ki is the designation used for a fighter by the IJAAF.

The Kawanishi N1Kx Shiden(George) also had "manuevering" flaps.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:22 PM
Interesting. Was it short for something, or did actually refer to fighters with Ki? Maybe they had a great love of puns? lol

I don't know anything of the IJAAF/IJN other than the fact that they burn easily, and every attempt to get them to do so should be made in any sim in which they are features. Kill 'em all!


lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:27 PM
Look here to see how a real P-38 fly, good roll rate (even without the J hydraulic ailerons) and great zoom climb!

http://p38whitelightnin.com/gallery/

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:30 PM
Btw, look at these vids, how this early P-38 climbs just after leaving the ground, not bad at all!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:39 PM
And its an exacnt replice, no new engines, no new/reworked airframe and its got guns that are armed?

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:43 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- The Ki-61 was made by Kawasaki,
-
- the Ki-100 was made by Kawasaki,
-
- BUT
-
- the Ki-84 was made by Nakajima.
-
-
-
- The Ki is the designation used for a fighter by the
- IJAAF.

"Ki" is the Japanese shortform of "Kitai" --> jap. for airframe or a/c (also bombers or recon a/c). That word was only in use with the Japanese Army AF - as MiloMorai stated already.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/ ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/</a>







"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:03 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- "Ki" is the Japanese shortform of "Kitai" --> jap.
- for airframe or a/c (also bombers or recon a/c).
- That word was only in use with the Japanese Army AF
- - as MiloMorai stated already.

Ah, thanks. Just thought it might have been a pun/play on "Ki" ("Chi" for most of the world). /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
10-08-2003, 03:51 PM
good info skychimp - thanks. I have read alot of mixed stuff about the 38 - upshot seems to be - in had incredible potential in the right hands - but the right hands were not the rule. I think the p63 probably outclimbs it, but I'm not sure.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:17 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- KIMURA wrote:
-- "Ki" is the Japanese shortform of "Kitai" --> jap.
-- for airframe or a/c (also bombers or recon a/c).
-- That word was only in use with the Japanese Army AF
-- - as MiloMorai stated already.
-
- Ah, thanks. Just thought it might have been a
- pun/play on "Ki" ("Chi" for most of the world).


LOL. No, it hasn't any relation to phylosophie./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:53 PM
One very good chart indeed, I hope Oleg will use it. The values can be easily converted to IAS if TAS speeds are lowered by ~10% for 10k ft, and ~20% for 20k ft.
In other words, to make it compatible with the well known NACA chart, my take is that a compatible figure would show 84/deg/sec at 10k ft, and about 280 mph IAS.


As for climb rate, here a comparison with other US and German fighters. It`s certainly the best climbing US plane, and roughly comparable to 109G at medium altitudes tipical on the western front, and superior to FW190A at all alts.

My take is that it will be the best US vertical fighter when it comes out, having heavy, concentrated firepower and good climbing characteristics, but the majority of playes will probably like the more "jack of all trades" P-51D, despite being inferior to the Lightning in firepower and vertical manouveribility. P-38 will be for cold headed tacticians.


Sustained climb rate at best Vclimb at altitude 0-9km.

Numbers in "()" are for MW-50 for D-9. MW-50 was used on irregular scale in 1944 for D-9, and as standard from about end of 1944/early 1945. K-4 figures are with MW-50.


Alt__Me109G-2_____Me109K-4____FW190A-8___FW190D-9

0km___20.6________24.5_________17.2______18.1_(22)
1km___22.5________24.7_________15.5______17.9_(21. 8)
2km___23.6________23.5_________14.2______17.6_(20. 3)
3km___19.5________22.4_________14.0______16.0_(19. 6)
4km___17.2________21.9_________13.9______15.5_(18. 9)
5km___16.6________20.2_________13.5______15.0_(17. 1)
6km___15.4________17.5_________11.2______14.1_(14. 1)
7km___12.9________15.0__________9.0______11.3
8km___10.4________12.5__________6.6_______8.6
9km____8.0________10.0__________4.4_______6.5



Alt__P-38J
0km___18.9
1km___18.4
2km___18.0
3km___17.5
4km___16.7
5km___15.8
6km___14.9
7km___13.3
8km___10.9
9km____8.5

Alt___P-47D
0km___16.1
1km___15.0
2km___13.9
3km___12.8
4km___11.7
5km___10.7
6km____9.6
7km____7.9
8km____6.1
9km____4.3

Alt__P-51D
0km___17.5
1km___17.6
2km___17.8
3km___15.9
4km___14.3
5km___14.0
6km___13.6
7km___11.6
8km____9.4
9km____7.1



Sources and plane data:

-P-51D. As given by the book 'America`s Hundred Thousend'

-P-38. USAAF`s "Performance comparison of Current Fighter Airplanes" Table.
and USAAF`s "Performance comparison of Current Fighter Airplanes, Liquid Cooled - Inline" Graph. Plane has 2x1600 BHP, as on late Js ans Ls.

-P-47D. USAAF`s "Performance comparison of Current Fighter Airplanes" Table. Subtype not given in document, but plane has 2600 BHP and weights 14 087 lbs at T-O.

-Me 109G-2: Plane has normal T-O weight of 3100kg and uses 1310 PS (1.3 ata) out of 1475 PS (1.42ata) maximim available.
Source: Finnish climb tests on serial plane MT-215

-Me 109K-4. Plane weights 3400 kg and has 2000PS .
Source Messerscmitt`s flight tests of Bf109K-4 dated 1.19.45 and 11.12.44.

-FW 190A-8: Plane has normal T-O weight of 4300kg, Erhohte Notleistung (0-6.3km) through tests, running at 1.58/1.65ata.
Source: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau Gmbh`s flight curves for FW-190A-8, dated 25.10.44, N.o. 190.801.133, page 17.

-FW 190D-9: Plane has normal T-O weight 4270kg, and is for both w. MW-50 (2100PS) and w/o it (1900PS).
Source:Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau Gmbh`s flight curves for
"FW-190D-9 - Jumo213A. Steigleistungen", dated 24.3.45.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

ZG77_Nagual
10-08-2003, 04:58 PM
Nice post Isegrim.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:44 PM
The problem with that P-38 (White Lightning) is that it doesn't have the heavy guns in the nose.

Good performance, but I must admit - it seems kind of demeaning to a old war horse, painted up like that.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
10-08-2003, 06:23 PM
like to see comparable charts for the p63 (climb)

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:51 PM
Yeah me too, I don't have any climbing figures for the P-63. Bet it climbs like a rocket!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:00 PM
Skychimp, where did you get the stuff about the onset of roll being better at high speeds?

For the rest of us, the rolling performance of the P-38, on paper, ain't bad. In a nutshell, it rolled well until higher speeds were reached, than the rate dropped quickly. The boosted aileron versions (J and L) sustained good roll at high speeds.

The rub seems to be that the type had a delayed onset of roll. In other words, throw the wheel over, and nothing happens at first. Once it got going it rolled pretty well.

I'm simply asking Skychimp where he got the data that the faster the P-38 went the less the delay. I'm very interested in it. Pilots at the Joint Fighter Conference were decidedly NOT favorable in their assessment of the types' maneuverability.

Also, the boosted ailerons had no effect on the roll delay.

Comparative assessments of its zooming abilities show it to be comparable to the Mustang. Better at mid level starting speeds, not as good at low or fast speeds.

The P-38 accelerated well in a dive, but hit its max speed very quickly, and compression was deadly in models up to the H. Its max mach was very low for a WW2 fighter. Dive flaps allowed recovery in later models, but it still had a very low limiting mach number. 0.68 off the top of my head.

The P-38 did a lot of things well, and had a couple of fairly serious limiting factors. Despite that, the J and L versions are viable candidates for "best all around fighter of WW2" to a lot of people.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:30 PM
"We're not talking about 109-like climb here, but it'll beat a lot of aircraft in a climb. Just don't do a immeliman... LOL!"

Actually, I imagine it to be somewhat different, Korolov. The characteristics of the P-38s generally suggest some very favorable aspects in regards to vertical maneuvering. The P-38 isn't a stellar climber like the late 109s, but it is more than just decent. Comparable with G-6s and Spit9s - already the two compared models are pretty good climbers. Another good attirubute is the typical and characteristic zoom climbs in US planes - couple that with a neutralized/non-existant torque and fowler flaps, the P-38L, as Isegrim says, is potentially one of the deadliest US fighters in vertical contests. Imelmmans I believe, especially extremely low-speed reversals, will be the P-38s specialty.

...

"For the rest of us, the rolling performance of the P-38, on paper, ain't bad. In a nutshell, it rolled well until higher speeds were reached, than the rate dropped quickly. The boosted aileron versions (J and L) sustained good roll at high speeds."

The boosted ailerons show a linear increase in roll speed with the speed of the plane itself. The roll speed dropping off with high speed, is characteristic of non-boosted ailerons on the earlier P-38s.

The roll inertia is also documented I believe. I'm not sure but I think it had to do with the weight of the engines being offset from the roll axis - which did have a certain negative effect of slow initial response, which suddenly speeded up after initial input with the stick. Then, to stop the roll the pilot needed to enter a bit of opposite roll, unlike other planes which would almost immediately stop rolling after stick input was terminated.

As a result, the overall roll speed in average was high, but the momentary speeds between initial stages, and final stages of roll input, would be different - at least that's what I understand of the issue.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:07 PM
kweassa wrote:
- Imelmmans I believe, especially
- extremely low-speed reversals, will be the P-38s
- specialty.

What I don't see about it, will be the rolling part. It will take it a few seconds to level out. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Then again, why bother doing that... can probably just hammerhead back down with little trouble.

Guess we'll know in a couple months! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:41 PM
Cathary wrote:

- Nope, it's not the best climbing fighter of the
- WW2. Probably the best climbing WW2 US aircraft,
- though(at least, among the fighters that entered
- extensive service in combat).

The best climbing US fighters of WII had US Navy painted on the side!!

The F4U-4 was fantastic on 100/130 fuel. It was phenonimal on 115/145 grade fuel.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 12:05 AM
Slickun wrote:
- Skychimp, where did you get the stuff about the
- onset of roll being better at high speeds?
- ...


Mainly if comes from anecdotal evidence.

Keep in mind that most of the "judges" of the P-38L at the Joint Fighter Conference were not regular pilots of the plane. For the most part, they flew other planes in other service branches or were test pilots/contractors with aircraft manufacturers.

It's equally important to remember that the pilots flew the P-38L under many conditions and their comments about manueverability do not necessarily apply to its ability to manuever in combat. You have to look at the summaries given by the pilots to find out just how they felt about the plane's attributes.



Anyway, here is how the judges broke down for the P-38L:

Judges:
Army 1
Navy 9
British 5
Contractors 13


These "judges" flew the P-38L and rendered opinions about various aspects of the plane. Note: not all pilots voted in all categoriess.



Here is a summary of opinions generated about the P-38L from the Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, October 16-23, 1944.

(Limited to comments about ailerons and elevators)



Elevators:
Force: 6 good, 2 fair; 0 poor / 6 high; 1 moderate; 4 light
Effectiveness: 16 good; 0 fair; 0 poor
Remarks: 3 normal; 1 nice curve; 1 excellent; 1 sluggish

Ailerons:
Force: 4 good; 0 fair; 0 poor / 0 high; 0 moderate; 19 light
Effectiveness: 14 good; 1 fair; 0 poor
General: 1 no feel, 1 too light; 1 too related to other controls; 2 ailerons snatch


So, aileron effectiveness was VERY highly rated by the pilots that flew the P-38L.

It seems the biggest complaint of the pilots that flew it was visibility and the complicated nature of the plane - it required a lot of attention to fly it.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 12:14 AM
Also, don't forget that the P-47 was also plagued by compressability. More than once a diving P-47 found itself stuck until the plane fell apart or came back under control at the lower altitudes.
I imagine that they will put out the J model with the field/factory upgrades including the dive brakes.
From what I have read the first 10 degrees were the slowest part of the roll, after that she rolled very nicely. It will be very tough to replicate that initial slowness.
The P-51 was not an easy bird to fly either, her torque was famous and deadly.
The 38 should be able to hold her own just like she did in the war. A good pilot who learns how to control the airplane will be called a 38 ***** and abusing a "noob" plane! The ultimate compliment for those of us who know better... Heheh

Mirthain=FC=

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 12:59 AM
Over 10 seconds inverted and kiss the main bearings goodbye!

Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:03 AM
Yes, Chimp, I have the book.

The judges also judged several planes better than the P-38 in maneuverability. The point was, it seemed to me, to get folks without an "ownership" feeling of the plane to fly it, and give honest opinions. Thus the very few (1) Army pilots to fly it.

They were flying boosted ailerons. They worked much much better than the unboosted types, most especially at high speeds. The dropoff curve of the unboosted P-38's is as sharp as any plane. I guess it just got to the point the pilot couldn't force the wheel over against the airflow. The boost completely solved the problem.

P-38's with unboosted ailerons fought the air battles of Jan-May 1944 in Europe. They were the least effective of the three Army types in this critical timeframe.

Anecdotal evidence is fine. I love it and think too many of us are welded to numbers and forget to look at what actually happened. Germans didn't rate the P-38 highly, the Japanese did. It was one of those planes that found it's niche in the Pacific..

Kweassa, the P-47 entered compression at MUCH higher speeds than the P-38, somewhere around mach .80. It accelerated well, and could continue to accelerate way, way past the point the P-38 pilot was totally dependant on the recovery flaps to give any sort of flight control.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:39 AM
The Germans didn't think much of it because of several reasons, not the least of which was that fact that it was easy to recognize from a distance. Additionally, in 1942 and 1943, for the most part, it fought well outnumbered. And as the war went on, more and more it was used as a strike fighter, low and heavily laden with ordinance. Several pilots of JG26 made it their personal missions to engage P-38s. Nevertheless, in the ETO the P-38 achieved a better than 2:1 kill/loss (all causes) ratio against Axis aircraft - worst of the three main American types, but good nonetheless. And compared to the P-47 and P-51, it was used in miniscule numbers.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:56 AM
I'm not one to denigrate a plane, but there was a time that the P-38 operated alongside the P-51 in roughly the same numbers.

The two types flew the same missions over the same ground on the same days, in very close to the same numbers.

Of course we're talking about the ETO, mid Dec 1943 through around early April 1944, when the rising numbers of P-51 groups began to ruin a comparison along these lines. During this time there were basically 1, 2 or 3 Groups of each, neither type having more than a one group edge. The P-38 came out much the worse here, as far as shooting down LW fighters.

The Lightning flown was the H model for the most part, surely not as capable as the J or L models. I give tremendous respect to those models.

There were other things in play as well, including a heater so poor at altitude the pilots ability to fight was compromised, and certainly not in the least the H model's Allison engine's crankiness in extremely cold weather.

But, all these things have to be taken into account as well when looking at a type, and not just top speed and wing loading.

The German unit that operated US and British types for training LW units also felt the P-51 was the better plane, this from "Strangers in a Strange Land".

Zemke felt the same thing, having led Groups featuring all three types.

SC, we can argue about the J and L's place alongside the great planes of WW2, but I think the models up to that point are a step below, at least in the ETO.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:29 AM
P-38 were awsome divers (with hydrolically boosted controls to prevent control lock). I really cant wait for this plane! nice post skychimp

well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:46 AM
Slickun wrote:
- I'm not one to denigrate a plane, but there was a
- time that the P-38 operated alongside the P-51 in
- roughly the same numbers.
-
- The two types flew the same missions over the same
- ground on the same days, in very close to the same
- numbers.
-
- Of course we're talking about the ETO, mid Dec 1943
- through around early April 1944, when the rising
- numbers of P-51 groups began to ruin a comparison
- along these lines. During this time there were
- basically 1, 2 or 3 Groups of each, neither type
- having more than a one group edge. The P-38 came
- out much the worse here, as far as shooting down LW
- fighters.

Well, Slickun, if you think I'm going to disagree that the Mustang was a better fighter than the P-38, you're wrong. There is simply no arguing that fact. But to suggest the P-38H was a sub-par fighter due to its record is to ignore important facts.

Yes, without doubt, at some time or another P-38s and P-51s operated in near equal numbers in much the same roles.

But there is no blinking at the fact that the P-38 was in theater first, in 1942, conducting operations against the best of the Luftwaffe, long before attrition had taken its toll of German pilots, and before the USAAF had gained a decisive numeric advantage. It is under these conditions that the P-38 is judged, both by the Americans and Luftwaffe.

The P-51 gets all the credit for taking the fight to Germany and delivering the coup-de-grace against the Luftwaffe, but it was the P-38 and the P-47 that dealt the first mortal blows. And the P-38 did it before any of them, again, against a highly trained, well equipped, and numerically superior enemy.

That the P-38, or any plane, was able to dish out more than it got under these conditions say volumes.



- The Lightning flown was the H model for the most
- part, surely not as capable as the J or L models. I
- give tremendous respect to those models.

Certainly the J and L were more capable. And most of the problems attributed to the P-38 did not exist in these models, having already been ironed out. But these models were introduced into the ETO after the P-38's role there as predominantly a fighter was in decline. Most of these planes in northern Europe went to the Ninth AF to be used in the fighter/bomber role.




- There were other things in play as well, including a
- heater so poor at altitude the pilots ability to
- fight was compromised, and certainly not in the
- least the H model's Allison engine's crankiness in
- extremely cold weather.
-
- But, all these things have to be taken into account
- as well when looking at a type, and not just top
- speed and wing loading.

No argument there. Certainly the early P-38s in northern Europe had problems. But problems aside, those P-38s still operated successfully as a fighter there, under very adverse conditions. Credit is due.



- The German unit that operated US and British types
- for training LW units also felt the P-51 was the
- better plane, this from "Strangers in a Strange
- Land".

No doubt.



- Zemke felt the same thing, having led Groups
- featuring all three types.
-
- SC, we can argue about the J and L's place alongside
- the great planes of WW2, but I think the models up
- to that point are a step below, at least in the ETO.

That the H was a "step below" the J and L models is implicit - it goes without saying. The same could be said when comparing the Spit V to the Spit XIV. The goal is to create a better model, not worse.

But there was a time when there were no Js and Ls, and the H was the best P-38 fighter available (and the best USAAF fighter available). And when that time was at hand, the P-38H was in Europe, doing the job it was intended to do, against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer, and it was dishing out better than it got.

No USAAF P-51 ever operated under the same circumstances and conditions, and against the "same" enemy, as those first P-38s in northern Europe.

Again, credit is due.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:27 PM
Why are we posting this? There's nothing we seem to be at loggerheads about?

shrugs

For anyone not following, the P-38 made an appearance in England in 1942. It was withdrawn after a time, reappearing to do combat ops in November of 1943. For about a month it operated as the only long range fighter in the ETO. The first Merlin Mustangs appeared in mid December of 1944. For that month they operated alone they scored about a dozen kills, and lost about the same IIRC.

The Allison Mustang also served very early, but was used almost exclusively as a photo recon bird by the Brits.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:39 PM
Here are some excerpts from an Eglin Field test from 1942:

"Against the P-39D, P-51, P-40F and P-47D1, the P-38F had an equal or shorter radius of turn from 15,000 feet on up.

It would outclimb all other types in the test. For a general combination of rate of climb, range, endurance, speed altitude and firepower, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested at this station."

"The Lockheed P-38 lightning"
Warrewn Bodie
Page 214

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:46 PM
Korolov wrote:
- Yeah me too, I don't have any climbing figures for
- the P-63. Bet it climbs like a rocket!
-
P-63 had a top speed of 410mph, climbed at 2,900 ft/min, and had a ceiling of 43,000 ft.


P-38J had a top speed of 420mph, climbed at 2,850 ft/min, and had a ceiling of 44,000 ft.


P-51D had a top speed of 437mph, climbed at 3,475 ft/min, and had a ceiling of 40,000 ft. (the C had slightly better numbers)


P-47D27 had a top speed of 430mph, climbed at 2,780 ft/min and had a ceiling of 40,000 ft. (the M had much better numbers)


Sources:
Francis H. Dean, Schiffer Military History
Joe Baugher's Encyclopedia of American Military Aircraft
Chuck Hawk's Best fighter planes of WW2



Whiner for the proper FM of US planes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 11:11 PM
The P-51 climbed THAT fast? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 11:20 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
-
- Korolov wrote:
-- Yeah me too, I don't have any climbing figures for
-- the P-63. Bet it climbs like a rocket!
--
- P-63 had a top speed of 410mph, climbed at 2,900
- ft/min, and had a ceiling of 43,000 ft.
-
-
- P-38J had a top speed of 420mph, climbed at 2,850
- ft/min, and had a ceiling of 44,000 ft.
-
-
- P-51D had a top speed of 437mph, climbed at 3,475
- ft/min, and had a ceiling of 40,000 ft. (the C had
- slightly better numbers)
-
-
- P-47D27 had a top speed of 430mph, climbed at 2,780
- ft/min and had a ceiling of 40,000 ft. (the M had
- much better numbers)
-
-
- Sources:
-
- Francis H. Dean, Schiffer Military History
- Joe Baugher's Encyclopedia of American Military
- Aircraft
- Chuck Hawk's Best fighter planes of WW2


Here is an "official" chart showing some climb rates (and other information). :

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/comparisons.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg



Message Edited on 10/10/0302:23AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:07 AM
Cool chart but kinda hard to read even when zoomed in. Any suggestion on seeing it more clearly?

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:19 AM
HEY isn't that the chart Cube showed in SimHQ?????
Yes indeed it is.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=3

Link to the chart:
( http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/alliedchrts2.jpg)


And now it's "official". Like accurate? Like to be taken seriously? I thought Buzzsaw described it with words:

"That chart you are putting forward is a joke."

"Either the chart is using some climb figure for the P-47 loaded with munitions or one running at less than full power."

"And you come up with this single page comparison of the "F-47" to other US aircraft which does not compare in any way to what other reports have shown."

"The charts you have presented are riddled with errors."

"The number of errors present in this Chart make it completely useless."

Damn, you guys do confuse sometimes.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 09:33 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

-
- And now it's "official". Like accurate? Like to be
- taken seriously? I thought Buzzsaw described it with
- words:
-
- "That chart you are putting forward is a joke."
-
- "Either the chart is using some climb figure for the
- P-47 loaded with munitions or one running at less
- than full power."
-
- "And you come up with this single page comparison of
- the "F-47" to other US aircraft which does not
- compare in any way to what other reports have
- shown."
-
- "The charts you have presented are riddled with
- errors."



As a non-scientist - not having the time and the gear to test ourselves checking all posted charts (scanned, self-made, ..) for integrity - I must say there'll be a day we will praise and obey Oleg's charts /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

muffinstomp

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:52 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- HEY isn't that the chart Cube showed in SimHQ?????
- Yes indeed it is.
-
-blah, blah, blah...



From the SimHQ site:

Posted by Cube

Now back to Russian planes.
I took values from P39Q1 manual ( http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/Page.html)
so theres climb performance chart (it's a bit unclear at what power settings it was done because ***manual indicates that these tests use combat power*** but then adds that take off power was used for 5 min, but I decided to choose most optimistic for Russian planes version and compare it to 100% in the game):



Thanks for pointing out that thread. I see "Cube" is forwarding that tired old argument that the P-39 climbs too fast in FB. He supports his argument by taking the climb rates from the P-39Q manual. But he makes the same basic mistake that Huckenbein has made here so many times before: assuming that the "Combat Climb" times and rates were achieved at "Combat Power."

All that arguing, and posting of charts. All those pretty little graphs he made, and he never realized that "Combat Climbs" were measured at "Military Power."

What a wasted effort on his part.

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/original/p29.jpg


http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/military.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:40 PM
Chimp - why would an "official" chart be so vague? "P-47D"? Err....like there was a whole boat load of them. Which are they talking about? Why would that info be left out.

And as I pointed out to Cube before, it says the F6F has a higher service cieling than the P-47. Even though the former has a 3 speed supercharger and the latter had a turbosupercharger. It seems very, well....odd.

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:03 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Chimp - why would an "official" chart be so vague?
- "P-47D"? Err....like there was a whole boat load of
- them. Which are they talking about? Why would that
- info be left out.

A whole "boat load" of them with minor differences. But major specs stayed approximately the same. There is no practical differenc in performance between a P-47D-25 and D-27.



- And as I pointed out to Cube before, it says the F6F
- has a higher service cieling than the P-47. Even
- though the former has a 3 speed supercharger

2 stage, 2 speed



- and the
- latter had a turbosupercharger. It seems very,
- well....odd.

That's the F6F-5's service ceiling.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/10/0310:03PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 09:20 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Here are some excerpts from an Eglin Field test from
- 1942:
-
- "Against the P-39D, P-51, P-40F and P-47D1, the
- P-38F had an equal or shorter radius of turn from
- 15,000 feet on up.


1942 means an Allison engined Mustang. I imagine it did everything better from 15000 feet on up.

Does that mean the Mustang had a better radius below that, where it would almost certainly be flying?

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 09:56 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- Chimp - why would an "official" chart be so vague?
-- "P-47D"? Err....like there was a whole boat load of
-- them. Which are they talking about? Why would that
-- info be left out.
-
- A whole "boat load" of them with minor differences.
- But major specs stayed approximately the same.
- There is no practical differenc in performance
- between a P-47D-25 and D-27.


So can we use the P-47 figures for FB then? Is that what you are saying?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 10:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Ugly_Kid wrote:
-- HEY isn't that the chart Cube showed in SimHQ?????
-- Yes indeed it is.
--
--blah, blah, blah...
-
-
-
-
- From the SimHQ site:
-
- Posted by Cube
-
- Now back to Russian planes.
- I took values from P39Q1 manual ( <a
- href="http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/plane
- s/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/Page.html)"
- target=_blank>http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ri
- ng/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/Page.html)</a>
- so theres climb performance chart (it's a bit
- unclear at what power settings it was done because
- ***manual indicates that these tests use combat
- power*** but then adds that take off power was used
- for 5 min, but I decided to choose most optimistic
- for Russian planes version and compare it to 100% in
- the game):


And the figures are from manual, so their reliability is questionable at best. So called advertisement figures, if you know what I mean.

IIRC Bogun (or then somebody else) presented proof that Russian Airacobra almost met them in some flight test.


We all have to be little more objective here.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 05:40 AM
Jippo01 wrote:

- And the figures are from manual, so their
- reliability is questionable at best. So called
- advertisement figures, if you know what I mean.
-
- IIRC Bogun (or then somebody else) presented proof
- that Russian Airacobra almost met them in some
- flight test.
-
-
- We all have to be little more objective here.
-
-
--jippo


The chart I posted is from a Corsair comparison report. Also compares other contemporary fighters.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 05:53 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- And the figures are from manual, so their
- reliability is questionable at best. So called
- advertisement figures, if you know what I mean.

And just why would the company give false or "overly optimistic" data to pilots who would be going out to put their lives on the line to protect the very interests of said company.

I just can't buy this "advertising" crap when it concerns training aids.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:47 AM
There have been far worse things done, so why not?

A pilot has to believe his aircraft is superior to anything else out there. Propoganda helps to strengthen his resolve.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 08:16 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- And just why would the company give false or "overly
- optimistic" data to pilots who would be going out to
- put their lives on the line to protect the very
- interests of said company.
-
- I just can't buy this "advertising" crap when it
- concerns training aids.


Why indeed? I do not know... Only examples of FiAF planes that matched manual figures were Brewster and 109. IIRC rest of them were off.

Few examples:

Examples could be Curtiss Hawk 75:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Cuh75.jpg

Climb chart:
1. CUw-551 RoC (Twin Wasp engine)
2. CUw-551 time of climb
3. CUw-557 RoC (Twin Wasp)

Speed chart:
1. Curtiss with Cyclone engine
2. Curtiss with Twin Wasp engine

Dotted line is manufacturer's performance figures.


Fiat G.50
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Fiat50.jpg

Climb chart:
1. Maximal climb by Finnish pilot (in Italy)
2. Manufacturer specification from manual
3. & 4. Test flights in Finland (in observed conditions)

Speed chart:
1. Fa-31 maximal speeds in test (without overboost)
2. Manufacturer specification from manual.


Credibility of manual figures is always suspectible. They may be actual flight performance figures, but chances are they are not.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 08:19 AM
Until several get killed by relying on that falsified data, and/or the Army or Navy do their own tests and find out otherwise. I can't imagine the customers would be very satisfied in either case.

Only place I can see "optimisitic" data is when shopping the design to the buyers initially, as well as slipping a special demo unit for the trials.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 08:39 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- Until several get killed by relying on that
- falsified data, and/or the Army or Navy do their own
- tests and find out otherwise. I can't imagine the
- customers would be very satisfied in either case.


Of course customers aren't happy, but what can they do? There certainly isn't any 30-day-your-money-back-guaranteed in it, is there?


And my point exactly, I would prefer to see tested figures with test conditions described (plane, type, serial number, pilot, test methods, temperature, ....) done by an independent party. Airforces qualify for me as independent parties, although might not be exactly that.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:34 PM
Jippo01 wrote:

- Credibility of manual figures is always suspectible.
- They may be actual flight performance figures, but
- chances are they are not.
-
-
-
--jippo

Agreed. Always best to rely on actual test numbers.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 01:46 AM
what is wrong with you people????

I see the charts Cube has done at SimHQ and some of you go there and say weird remarks such as "he must have an agenda"??!?!?Should an IL2 climb to 5000m in 7minutes?No yet noone speaks of this.All the climbs seems way off and yet people just say things like luftwhinners?????Forget the luftwhinners and fix the whole dam sim.If the best climbing planes are climbing at a rate of 1 whole minute too fast than why not add weight to all the planes.Some times I think that Oleg wants it to be waaaaaay off so he feels justified when the next major sim is a little bit closer to reality.

Now letys wait and see what the BOB will bring in fm wackiness./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Guys your playing with yourselves if you really feel that FB is close to what the real planes did.Yes FB is the best and yes its got some figures spot on but come on...get real already.I feel as though I am in a forum that has insane people in it.Defenition for insanity....doing the same wrong thing over and over.Well stop debating about fm's that are way off.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 02:56 AM
Back on topic.

Hopefully, Oleg will use these figures for the P-38.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0306:10AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:03 AM
Wishful thinking, but I'd also like to see torque effects redone. Imagine what a asset the P-38 would have in roll then! Just throttle one engine down and insta-roll!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:55 AM
More wishful thinking - add more slider controls.

1 for each engine, prop pitch, mixture, and 1 for the turbo (for the Jug).

They don't all have to be assigned, but it would be nice to have the luxury to pick and choose.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 08:39 AM
Pushing the limits of what FB can take; maybe in the next sim.

If my old F-15 style throttle still worked, I'd hook it up and use both throttle assemblies as engine control! And could switch it to prop pitch if I needed to... Hmm. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Anybody know if theres a way to, say, hold down a button and then move the axis to have the axis switch a function? Sorta like a shift that affects the axises.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 12:52 PM
Korolov wrote:
- Anybody know if theres a way to, say, hold down a
- button and then move the axis to have the axis
- switch a function? Sorta like a shift that affects
- the axises.

hey Korolov...thats a great idea and I am suprised that nobody has thought of this.You can take a regular joystick like I have and with 2 or more buttons have the one sliding axis cover throttle/mixture/prop pitch.Oleg,this would be a great idea for the next sim.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 03:56 PM
Korolov wrote:
- Anybody know if theres a way to, say, hold down a
- button and then move the axis to have the axis
- switch a function? Sorta like a shift that affects
- the axises.

Yeah, get a Cougar and program a profile for it. There is almost nothing you can't do with one of these.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:15 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Yeah, get a Cougar and program a profile for it.
- There is almost nothing you can't do with one of
- these.

Haven't got 300 bucks to blow on a Cougar... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif