PDA

View Full Version : P-38 issues



Willey
03-14-2004, 06:15 AM
Alright... nice plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. I really like it. But there are some issues which need correction:

2x 1000lb bombs only? Couldn't it carry 4 of them? I think Gibbage posted some photos of it...

We only have 250rpg cal .50 ammo. Should be 500 rounds per gun.

Why the hell is the L slower than the J?? Object viewer tells me it had 2x 1600hp (probably water injection which doesn't work in FB) over the 2x 1425hp of the J and it's just a tad heavier. Even without water injection, the 111/113 series delivers 1475hp, 50 more than the 89/91 series. It can hardly be slower with 350 more hp. It seems we don't have the water injection (as there's no WEP message).

Those Bazooka rockets are great... but those tubes are friggin draggy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. Any chance to drop them?? It would just be logic to drop them after fireing the rockets. Maybe those who have good books and sources about it should look for any info about that. It's also an issue with those WGr.21 grenade launchers; and I think someone already did find info about dropping them already...

Willey
03-14-2004, 06:15 AM
Alright... nice plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. I really like it. But there are some issues which need correction:

2x 1000lb bombs only? Couldn't it carry 4 of them? I think Gibbage posted some photos of it...

We only have 250rpg cal .50 ammo. Should be 500 rounds per gun.

Why the hell is the L slower than the J?? Object viewer tells me it had 2x 1600hp (probably water injection which doesn't work in FB) over the 2x 1425hp of the J and it's just a tad heavier. Even without water injection, the 111/113 series delivers 1475hp, 50 more than the 89/91 series. It can hardly be slower with 350 more hp. It seems we don't have the water injection (as there's no WEP message).

Those Bazooka rockets are great... but those tubes are friggin draggy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. Any chance to drop them?? It would just be logic to drop them after fireing the rockets. Maybe those who have good books and sources about it should look for any info about that. It's also an issue with those WGr.21 grenade launchers; and I think someone already did find info about dropping them already...

Aaron_GT
03-14-2004, 06:41 AM
At least it gets to have
bombs and rockets - we don't
get a thing for the Hurri!

AFAIK the 4000lb load was
not standard on the P38,
and the tubes were fixed.

Given how many standard load
outs are missing on so many
planes it would be churlish
to complain about the lack
of a non standard load out

ajafoofoo
03-14-2004, 08:53 AM
The L is supposed to have water injection?

I haven't even flown the J yet, don't understand why the L would be slower.

Bull_dog_
03-14-2004, 11:24 AM
The J model was the fastest of the P-38's...the L was heavier I believe...read it in a book on P-38's...but it is a difference of like 6 mph...that is all...at least at top speed don't know about down low...

If the aircraft is modelled with 250rnds of .50 caliber ammo then that is just plain wrong...it was 500/gun. I'm glad to see the Jug roll rate being corrected but the bullet count and the bullet dispersion/vibration just aggravates me to no end...I don't know why we have to fight, argue and whine to get it right....I hope this is just an oversight that will be corrected...I'm thinking the roll rate on the L is too slow. It should roll with a clipped winged spitfire...the faster it went the better its relative roll rate. At slow speed it rolled like the J model which feels right to me...but get it to 350+ km/hr and it should begin to shine...it rolls decent but not great.

I've been waiting to get a good comparison before posting ...fly on line where you really find out how your machine stacks up against your adversaries and those are about the only things I can find that could use tweaking imho...that ammo count really disturbs me...

Put the sim on 1/4 speed and go external and fire your guns...zoom out about 300 meters and tell me if the cannon and machine gun fire is in a 30 inch circle...maybe a 10 ft. circle. I think that is the vibration thing...just insn't right either.

Those are the kinds of things you don't read of a chart anywhere I suspect... seems Oleg assumes the worst as opposed to best case scenario with American aircraft.

pinche_bolillo
03-14-2004, 01:32 PM
the 38 never had water injection in a production a/c.

J vs L strange debate on the J being faster than the L. I have a lot of books on the P-38 and the books that are basic general reference do list the J as being faster than the L. I believe this to be misinformation based on these reasons.

the J and the L were basically identical a/c. same airframe, same weight, same hp by army aircorps standards. the only real and major difference were the engines. J had F-17s and the L had F-30s. now the army air corps restricted the F-30s to the same hp as the J's F-17s. the F-17 made 1,600hp up to 26,500ft while the F-30 was rated by the army for 1,600 hp up to 28,700 ft. so this would lead me to believe that the L and J had identical rates of climb and speed up to 26,500ft. above that the L should have a slight advantage.

also the L models were finished in natural metal w/o any paint, while most J models were painted w/ flat paint. so the J would have a bit more drag just due to the flat paint. so why would a J be faster than an L? I do not know, once again I think it is just misinformation.

many books on units that flew the 38s have pilot comments that say that the L was faster than the J. this is an odd one to me and it is never fully explained why the L was faster than the J according to these pilots. could it be possible that the squadrons that recieved the new L models were running the F-30s at 1,725 hp which was its approved rating according to lockheed and allison? who knows.

many books swap performance figures between the J and L. I think this is because anybody who researches the J and L will soon come to the conclusion that they were virtually identical a/c due to the army air corps hp restriction on the F-30s in the L. my theory....in the late 40s an autor writes a book on the P-38. speed and climb rates taken from a J tested at eglin army air corps base in 44 will be used for the L model because the autor lacks data for the L, since the J and L were nearly identical a/c it is good enough for his book, also he has a dead line to meet with the publisher. years later another autor writes a book on the 38 and uses the figures from the first autors book, authors using other books for reference is not uncommon. this gets repeated several times by many different autors. then some autor uncovers new data for the J model which says it did 421, 426, or 430 (pick one for yourself I have seen all those figures for the J model) and he uses this in his new book. lacking new speed data for the L he uses the old eglin stand by of 414 mph. thus the new generaly accepted myth that the J is faster than the L is born. top speed of the J 421/426 and top speed of the L 414.

one good example is why would the J have the exact same speed as an L model at 29,000 ft when the L model had more hp at this altitude than the J, toss in the flat camo paint on the J to slow it down a tad more and it adds up to one thing in my mind. data for the J and L have been swapped back and forth for so many years in so many differnt books that many books print the wrong thing.

in game a/c, I too have noticed the gun dispersion. I noticed it while I was shooting at something on the ground. I missed the target and saw my bullets strike the ground. I noticed a rather large disperson. so I went off line and tested it. I taxied on the ground over to a hill. I held the breaks and fired all the guns into the hill. I couldnt believe the dispersion. even if you only fired a quick burst so that you were not firing while the a/c was shaking around from recoil there was quite a bit of dispersion. even at close range there was dispersion and the farther away you got the worse it is. next test on same map and same airfield I took a 109g2 over to the hill and fired the guns into it. very tight pattern from the 109. the thing that really baffeled me is how the 38 shook inflight while firing the guns. the 109g2 hardly shakes at all when you fire the guns. the 38 only has 2 more mgs than the 109g2 and it weighs about 2x more than the 109.

[This message was edited by pinche_bolillo on Sun March 14 2004 at 12:43 PM.]

Aviar
03-14-2004, 02:23 PM
Having a ball with the P-38, but there is something about the mirror that I have a question about.

Bring up the mirror and zoom in on it to get a good look. In the middle lower portion of the viewing area, there appears to be a large silver kind of square shaped object. It is blocking a good 25% of the total viewing area, including most of the horizontal portion of the tail section. What is this object?

When I look at the plane in external view and zoom in to the cockpit area, I don't see anything that would be obscuring this part of the mirror. If you draw an imaginary line from the mirror to the tail boom, there doesn't seem to be anything in the way. However, if you look in the mirror, most of the tail boom is obscured.

Aviar

--------------------------
AMD XP 2600+
EPoX EP-8K9AI Mobo
1536Mb DDR PC 2100 RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Klipsch 5.1 THX Certified Speakers
CH FighterStick USB
CH Pro Throttle USB
CH Pro Pedals USB
Thrustmaster Tacticalboard
--------------------------

CaptainGelo
03-14-2004, 03:21 PM
bump... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

VF-2_John_Banks
03-14-2004, 03:34 PM
Aviar, that thing in your mirror is the rear armor plate for your head. If FB would model the pilot in the cockpit, you would see the head in the middle of that plate.

Now back to the topic. Which issues i have found so far:

1. There is a slight torque effect, which leds the plane roll to the right. The two counter rotating props eliminated the torque effect completely in RL!

2. When flying on one engine, the plane doesn't yaw into the "dead" engine. It is not really necessary to use the rudder to counteract the effect caused by the running engine. In RL, you had to trim the rudder quite a bit to keep the ship flying straight. On the other hand, when taxiing on the ground, we exactly get the huge yaw effect caused by one engine only and that makes it alsmost impossible to taxi on the ground with one engine, although that was no problem in RL, due to the low RPM necessary on the ground to do so. If i am not mistaken, Oleg has to switch that. What we get on the ground is actually what we should get in the air and vice versa.

3. When you loose (read: fall apart) both engines (due to fire or ground obstacles), you still have the control of one engine and can actual drive around, although the engine is lying in the dust and not attached to your plane.

4. You can lock the "tailwheel" on the P-38! What tailwheel? It actually locks the nose wheel( the nose wheel isn't animated when locked) but it has no effect (that i am aware of). Maybe it's like a park brake.

5. When a certain degree of damage has been reached and you are looking to the left or right (where the damage is), you can see, on the inner parts of the wings, the default skin under your skin and the plane seems to have an open structure or bleeding texture problem, as you can look into the inside.

6. The wheel animation is complete rubbish. When you drop your gear, the wheels almost fall down the first 1/4 and the nose wheel extends much faster than the main wheels. But that's just a minor issue.

PzKpfw
03-14-2004, 04:08 PM
The P38J and L weighed the same Ie:

Empty = 12,780lb
Loaded = 21,600lb

Max speed on both models was 414mph, climb was the same with both @ 20,000ft in 7mins. The powerplants were difrent as the J used thee V-1710-89 to 91/1425 hp.

The L used the V-1710-111 to 173/1425. The L added paddle blade propellers as well. The L had a longer range as well @ 2,625mls vs the J's 2600mls.

Ammunition loadout on Both P-38s was 4 x .50cal with 500rpg, and 1 x 20mm with 150rds. or 33.3secs of fire for the .50 and 15secs of 20mm fire.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Aviar
03-14-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
Aviar, that thing in your mirror is the rear armor plate for your head. If FB would model the pilot in the cockpit, you would see the head in the middle of that plate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try, but the mirror is for looking BEHIND the plane, not for checking your makeup...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif When the pilot looked in the mirror, he wasn't supposed to see his own head...LOL

Hey Gibbage, can you shed some light on this please?

BTW, here ia a link to a screenshot of the mirror:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=478100672

Aviar

--------------------------
AMD XP 2600+
EPoX EP-8K9AI Mobo
1536Mb DDR PC 2100 RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Klipsch 5.1 THX Certified Speakers
CH FighterStick USB
CH Pro Throttle USB
CH Pro Pedals USB
Thrustmaster Tacticalboard
--------------------------

[This message was edited by Aviar on Sun March 14 2004 at 04:11 PM.]

Bull_dog_
03-14-2004, 07:36 PM
I don't know how the official way of notifying Oleg is, but somebody who knows needs to contact him about the ammo count...easily verifiable and easily correctable if it really is 250 rpg.

The dispersion issue may be more of a debate (though it shouldn't be)...I know the roll rate will be if it is anything like getting the Jug changed...I don't think he can do much with the torque, but it would be nice to have lots of warning before the snap stall happens since it isn't supposed to happen at all.

CPS_Shadow
03-14-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I don't know how the official way of notifying Oleg is, but somebody who knows needs to contact him about the ammo count...easily verifiable and easily correctable if it really is 250 rpg.

The dispersion issue may be more of a debate (though it shouldn't be)...I know the roll rate will be if it is anything like getting the Jug changed...I don't think he can do much with the torque, but it would be nice to have lots of warning before the snap stall happens since it isn't supposed to happen at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See first post of this thread under bug reporting:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=731107852

WhiskeyRiver
03-15-2004, 12:02 AM
I'm really hating the gun dispersion. Martin Caidin's book on the P-38 had a time lapse photo of one firing the .50's at night with tracers. They made 4 solid lines going to the target. I don't understand how the Lagg which weigh much less and also has 5 guns in the nose doesn't spread shots all over the sky. ditto for the LA-7 3x20mm and the 4x20mm and 2x13mm's on the FW-190. All are lighter acft yet have similar amounts of armament and don't spray ammo everywhere.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Rab03
03-15-2004, 03:10 AM
To WhiskeyRiver: Just curious. Did you set gun convergence to infinity? If you did , there still would be some dispersion, but it should be considerably smaller (at reasonable distances). If you set gun convergence to 200m, after that distance (at which all bullets would pass through small area), bullets diverge.

pinche_bolillo
03-15-2004, 04:55 AM
the 7 min to 20,000ft for the J and L is correct if you are running less than wep power. many books list a 6 min to 6:20 climb time to 20,000ft if you use wep power for the first five minutes then military power there after. this is at a 17,699lb take off weight.

I believe the correct take off weight for the J and L to be 17,699 lbs. full internal fuel, oil, ammo, and a 200 lb pilot allowance. 21,600 lbs is with two 165 gallon drop tanks added. 12,780lb empty weight is for an a/c with out any trapped oil or gas. 14,100lb emty is used when speaking of a J or L model that has trapped oil and fuel onboard. I believe they use the term basic weight when using the 14,100lb figure.

the L model never incorperated "paddle props" only the K proto type had this feature.

if I remember correctly from watching real 38s lower their gear, when extended the actually do drop about 1/4 of the way rather quickly, then the nose wheel extends first and much more quickly than the main gear. w/ the main gear one always locks before the other.

when I use F-17s these are the 89/91 engines in the J and the F-30s are the 111/113 in the L

many books list the hp as being the same for the F-17 and F-30, 1,425 hp military and 1,600 hp wep. while some other books list the F-30 military rating at 1,475 hp.

pinche_bolillo
03-15-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rab03:
To WhiskeyRiver: Just curious. Did you set gun convergence to infinity? If you did , there still would be some dispersion, but it should be considerably smaller (at reasonable distances). If you set gun convergence to 200m, after that distance (at which all bullets would pass through small area), bullets diverge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it doesnt matter what you set the guns to in the 38 they suffer much more dispersion than the G2 does with the same setting.

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
the 7 min to 20,000ft for the J and L is correct if you are running less than wep power. many books list a 6 min to 6:20 climb time to 20,000ft if you use wep power for the first five minutes then military power there after. this is at a 17,699lb take off weight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that was basic time to climb Ie, The P-38J/L could climb:

10,000ft - 3.5mins
20,0000ft - 7mins
30,000ft - 11.5mins

weights listed in climb graphs are 17000, & 17,500lbs. Useing Normal, Military, and Combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I believe the correct take off weight for the J and L to be 17,699 lbs. full internal fuel, oil, ammo, and a 200 lb pilot allowance. 21,600 lbs is with two 165 gallon drop tanks added. 12,780lb empty weight is for an a/c with out any trapped oil or gas. 14,100lb emty is used when speaking of a J or L model that has trapped oil and fuel onboard. I believe they use the term basic weight when using the 14,100lb figure.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True Ie, AHT lists the P-38J empty weight @ 11,196.0lbs and basic weight @ 14,100lbs. &
the L @ 12,800 empty, & 14,100lbs basic.

Basic meant limiting ammunition and internal fuel and oil to less then full capacity. While O'leary listed the J/L weights I previously gave.

P-38J/ takeoff weight varied depending on loadout Ie, 16,149lbs 17,009lbs 17,699lbs 19,854lbs 21,039lbs etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

the L model never incorperated "paddle props" only the K proto type had this feature.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct my mistake was heading to work and mistook the P38K-LO varient data for the P38L data.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

VF-2_John_Banks
03-15-2004, 09:17 AM
Damn, i've hoped to have a mirror for my makeup in the P-38 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

WhiskeyRiver
03-15-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rab03:
To WhiskeyRiver: Just curious. Did you set gun convergence to infinity? If you did , there still would be some dispersion, but it should be considerably smaller (at reasonable distances). If you set gun convergence to 200m, after that distance (at which all bullets would pass through small area), bullets diverge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I set mine to 1000. it's more of a problem with the whole nose of the aircraft moving around rather than the bullets' dispersion. I've never read any pilots account describing "nose shake", etc. The only problems I've read of was dispersion from the actual gun barrels overheating from long bursts. The P-38 is heavier than the P-47 yet suffers more from this phenomenon. It doesn't make any sense.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

RavagerOCHW
03-15-2004, 12:33 PM
The YP80 doesnâ´t shake at all and it has 6 mgs and is not as heavy i think.

Oleg give the P38 the ammo that it had. Remove that stupid shake and give the L a better Rollrate than the J. That will not give us a "uberplane" but a fair one.

Ok the snapstalls are also mysterious.

Aaron_GT
03-15-2004, 01:22 PM
". The wheel animation is complete rubbish. When you drop your gear, the wheels almost fall down the first 1/4 and the nose wheel extends much faster than the main wheels. But that's just a minor issue. "

It's not an issue - it's
accurate! It is correctly
modelled in one of the
other sims I have (can't
remember which one - maybe
Janes WW2 Fighters?)

VF-2_John_Banks
03-15-2004, 02:13 PM
Trust me, the gear animation is wrong. I have video footage to compare. The wheels aren#t animated correctly but that is only a minor not really important glitch, as i never see my gear while flying in a FR game.

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 02:35 PM
I dont get this shake either, none of the data I have indicates any shakeing, infact the P-38 data concering it as a gun platform is all praised, as being very stable etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

El Turo
03-15-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
I'm really hating the gun dispersion. Martin Caidin's book on the P-38 had a time lapse photo of one firing the .50's at night with tracers. They made 4 solid lines going to the target. I don't understand how the Lagg which weigh much less and also has 5 guns in the nose doesn't spread shots all over the sky. ditto for the LA-7 3x20mm and the 4x20mm and 2x13mm's on the FW-190. All are lighter acft yet have similar amounts of armament and don't spray ammo everywhere.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sheesh, that's an EASY question!

It's the Delta Wood, of course!

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

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 04:43 PM
I just checked the viewr in Ace & the P-38J armament is listed as:

4 x .50 w/500rpg
1 x 20mm w/150rpg.

So where does this 250rpg come from discussed here?.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WhiskeyRiver
03-15-2004, 04:45 PM
I'm also gonna try to get down to the Pima Air Museum. One of the guys that works there was a P-38 pilot. I want to ask him what speeds compressibilty was encountered at. It should be higher at low altitude. Compressibility was dependent on what percentage of the speed of sound the aircraft was flying at(with the -38 should be .67 mach). In AEP it seems like it's a set airspeed that the -38 loses elevator effectiveness.

Anyone got a chart showing the speed of sound in relation to altitude?

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Bull_dog_
03-15-2004, 05:22 PM
The ammo issue has been brought up in several posts...I think someone tested it...wouldn't be hard to go online and fire all your ammo and do a gunstat to see how many shots were fired...

I've been thinking about the whole gun vibration and conspiracy theories that I don't believe in... I can't help but to think how steady and deadly the Yak-3 is... 1 20mm cannon and 2 12.7mm machine guns in a stripped down Yak 9.... I used to fly her alot. The Yak 3 and 9U are amongst the steadiest gun platforms in the game and they are very deadly....

The Lightning should be that plus 2 .50 cal machine guns. The Yak gun platform/dispersion/killing power is how the lightning should be plus 2 fifties... we're talking about an aircraft that is over twice as heavy, twice the engines, no torque and two more machine guns.... unless I'm missing something the lightning should have no vibration and no bullet dispersion and have 500 rounds of ammo per machine gun...I think it is like 33 seconds of firing... the plane should have more firepower than a Yak and I would say today that it is on par with the Yak...maybe. Although that is not a fair comparison cause the vibration... I just don't understand why Oleg put the vibration there in the first place? La-7's with 3 20mm in the nose don't vibrate like that and those cannons aren't even asymetrically dispersed....

Well I'm crossing my fingers on this one cause the vibration, dispersion as it relates to firepower and of course the ammo count are the only thing holding the Lightning back as being one of the best modelled lightings made (barring torque cause that seems to be an engine limitation)

Gibbage1
03-15-2004, 07:00 PM
OK. #1, the mirror does need to be fixed. I never put a mirror on my model. That was Oleg's crew.

#2, the landing gear. Ya. Its wrong. But does it ruin the game? Hardly. The back landing gear did not lower at the same time and was very slow, were as the front gear was faster. But like I said, does that brake the game? No.

#3, Last I checked, the P-38 did have 3 seconds of fire time on the .50 cal, and 15 second on the 20MM. Thats fixed. If your checking online, remember that your shots are condensed into packets. Sending each bullete over the network would take up WAY too much bandwidth. But a packet is much smaller. You cant use your shot count online because of this. I believe Oleg has the MG's online with half ammo, half the rate of fire, but twice the damage as a way to lower the number of packets. This is VERY COMMON in online games.

Test it out yourself. Go into a game, and hold down the trigger. If you have 33 seconds of trigger time, its all OK. OK?

Korolov
03-15-2004, 07:30 PM
I get 17 seconds out of both P-38 model's .50 cal. Either the ROF on the P-38s are increased or it has a couple hundred rounds less. It's still more than many other planes.

Also, the J and L were virtually the same aircraft, with the exception that the L had a flush landing light and some extra weight.

The P-38 was qualified for about 4,000lbs of ordiance, but that much was rarely carried. At maximum, 2x1000lb bombs would be carried, though 500lbs were the norm.

No P-38 was equipped with a special boost system.

I will have to admit that the dispersion of the .50 cals is a big PIA, but at ranges beyond 200m you're really just wasting your time with HMG anyways.

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

Bull_dog_
03-15-2004, 07:32 PM
Just checked fire time and I got about 14 seconds of 20mm and 20 seconds of .50 cal...I don't know what the rate of fire was for real so I don't know if this is right, but I'm thinking its on the light side of a proper ammo count...I say this because I don't get the overwhelming feel of firepower in my trigger finger...good but not great. The lightning was great...the best the Americans had for concentrated firepower. If that time is too short then the rate of fire is about 35% too high...It doesn't feel like it as I shoot planes, but feel doesn't constitute facts. I'm sticking with the origninal conjecture that the lightning is light in the ammo department.

By the way Gib...I never told you but I do love the model and thanks...I fly it all the time on line and off line. I get plenty of kills in servers with historical plane sets but those are getting harder to find with settings I like unfortunately.

Being American and loving American and British warplanes I have an interest in seeing the P-38 behave as a P-38 did in WWII. I like the speed, turn, acceleration and the roll on the J model. These weapons though...I had to take a Yak out for a spin again...I wasn't wrong with my other post...a little slight vibration and an absolutely deadly burst. I took out AI 109's with short bursts...very short on some. Take that and add two .50's....and you have the Lightning.

Well Oleg will do with it as Oleg sees fit...

There is no American plane that is overmodelled and there are only a couple of British planes to talk about. I don't think taking away the vibration, tightening up the dispersion and proper ammo counts will make the 38 Uber...just more lightning like.

I'm gonna go fly the Lightning some more and hope these inaccuracies are fixed.

Gibbage1
03-15-2004, 09:17 PM
Thats odd. In the beta, I counted 33 seconds on the .50 cal. I wonder why Oleg changed it?

I just checked. This is very odd. I get 32 seconds of .50 cal and 20 seconds of 20MM! I also suffer from the 7.5 second roll rate. Interesting. Oleg should really look into this. It sounds very bugged.

Im guessing the people with 4.5 second roll rate (About half) has about half the trigger time. Its just odd that these errors are occuring with just the P-38.

Oleg?

Gib

Gibbage1
03-15-2004, 09:24 PM
The P-38's used 2x2000lb bombs in attacks against Ploesti after the B-24 Libs failed. They had a designated glass-nosed droop snoot P-38 for the raids and they all dropped on his command. I think there were two missions. 1 was jumped by a bunch of AIR-80's (?) and had massive losses because the P-38's were detected from far away and a trap was set for them.

Also, the P-38 was capable of two 2000lb torps. Never used in war, but tested.

But Oleg has not modeled 2000lb bombs. Thats why its not in.

As for firing at anytihng over 200M being a waist, not for P-38's. 200M was the typical convergance of wing MG's. The P-38 was all boarsighted. kills at 1000M was not uncommon in the Pacific.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
The P-38 was qualified for about 4,000lbs of ordiance, but that much was rarely carried. At maximum, 2x1000lb bombs would be carried, though 500lbs were the norm.

No P-38 was equipped with a special boost system.

I will have to admit that the dispersion of the .50 cals is a big PIA, but at ranges beyond 200m you're really just wasting your time with HMG anyways.

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

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 09:52 PM
Just so we are clear the P-38 weapons was:

4 x .50 500rpg = 33.3 secs of fire time.
1 x 20mm 150rpg = 15 secs of fire time.

The .50 put out 15rds/sec wheras the 20mm put out 10rds/sec. Combined weight of fire was:

4 x .50 = 6.36lb/sec
1 x 20mm = 2.90lb/sec

Or 9.26lb/sec combined.

Comparatively the P-51D 6 x .50 fireing time was 20.9 sec. with a weight of fire of 9.54lbs/sec. & the P-47's 8 x .50 fireing time was 17.8 secs with a weight of fire of 12.72lb/sec.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Korolov
03-16-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-38's used 2x2000lb bombs in attacks against Ploesti after the B-24 Libs failed. They had a designated glass-nosed droop snoot P-38 for the raids and they all dropped on his command. I think there were two missions. 1 was jumped by a bunch of AIR-80's (?) and had massive losses because the P-38's were detected from far away and a trap was set for them.

Also, the P-38 was capable of two 2000lb torps. Never used in war, but tested.

But Oleg has not modeled 2000lb bombs. Thats why its not in.

As for firing at anytihng over 200M being a waist, not for P-38's. 200M was the typical convergance of wing MG's. The P-38 was all boarsighted. kills at 1000M was not uncommon in the Pacific.

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't have a "Droop Snoot" P-38 though. Point being, anything larger than 1000lb being used was very uncommon, both because the 2000lb was very heavy and the 1000lb got the job done just as well.

Over 200m - oh sure, P-38s can reach out and touch someone from a klick away. How powerful do you think a .50 cal round is going to be from that far out, though? You might as well be using spitwads. "When the target fills your windscreen" was the rule of thumb, no matter if a aircraft or weapon could hit something from farther out. You have a chance to hit something from a klick out, but it's a waste of time and won't do you any good.

Also, don't forget that bullets arc over distance. You're looking at a lot of drop over the space of a kilometer.

No offense to the guys who might have scored hits and kills out to a klick, but I think they were probably closer than they thought; not to mention "accurate out to a 1000 yards" was probably more of a figure of speech rather than actual fact.

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

pinche_bolillo
03-16-2004, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-38's used 2x2000lb bombs in attacks against Ploesti after the B-24 Libs failed. They had a designated glass-nosed droop snoot P-38 for the raids and they all dropped on his command. I think there were two missions. 1 was jumped by a bunch of AIR-80's (?) and had massive losses because the P-38's were detected from far away and a trap was set for them.

Also, the P-38 was capable of two 2000lb torps. Never used in war, but tested.

But Oleg has not modeled 2000lb bombs. Thats why its not in.

As for firing at anytihng over 200M being a waist, not for P-38's. 200M was the typical convergance of wing MG's. The P-38 was all boarsighted. kills at 1000M was not uncommon in the Pacific.

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't have a "Droop Snoot" P-38 though. Point being, anything larger than 1000lb being used was very uncommon, both because the 2000lb was very heavy and the 1000lb got the job done just as well.

Over 200m - oh sure, P-38s can reach out and touch someone from a klick away. How powerful do you think a .50 cal round is going to be from that far out, though? You might as well be using spitwads. "When the target fills your windscreen" was the rule of thumb, no matter if a aircraft or weapon could hit something from farther out. You have a chance to hit something from a klick out, but it's a waste of time and won't do you any good.

Also, don't forget that bullets arc over distance. You're looking at a lot of drop over the space of a kilometer.

No offense to the guys who might have scored hits and kills out to a klick, but I think they were probably closer than they thought; not to mention "accurate out to a 1000 yards" was probably more of a figure of speech rather than actual fact.

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

read up on 38 units you can find plenty of references to the use of 2,000lb bombs. it was a standard feature of the 38, a 4,000lb bomb load. units in the field modified 38s to carry 5,200lb bomb loads. now since this was a standard feature (4,000lb bomb load) why can it not be incorperated into the game? over 7,500 about 75% of all 38s produced could carry this load. we have a/c in this game that were prototypes and other a/c that saw very limited use, so why should we nerf the 38 any more than it already has been? atleast let it be a half decent ground attack a/c.

also the issue about the 38s guns is very valid. take up any similary armed a/c and shoot all the guns, the nose barely twitches around, now try this in the 38, it jumps around so badly that aiming is very difficult. I am not asking for 1,000meter kills here, but if a guy wants to spray all his ammo at an a/c that is 1000 meters away to maybe damage it a bit, well atleast give him a chance. the bullet dispersion is a valid issue. no other nose mounted high velocity gun set up in the game has such a large bullet dispersion as does the 38.

on the firing times, 500 rds per gun and 33 seconds in being quoted here a lot. that is amost 1,000 rpm. I thought the 50 cal M-2 had a rate of fire of 750-800 rpm or almost 45 seconds of fire time.

Aaron_GT
03-16-2004, 12:36 AM
" so why should we nerf the 38 any more than it already has been"

You support getting any bombs AT ALL for the Hurricane
and I might support more loadouts for the P38.

PzKpfw
03-16-2004, 01:00 AM
Dean's America's Hundred Thousand armament tables on pages 133, 134, & 135 lists all US fighters armament ROF, RPG, fireing time, weight of fire etc. It appears just as I have listed it with .50s fireing 800 - 900rpm. The P-38 had the 2nd longest fireing time of any US production fighter with the 4 x .50 @ 33.3sec. Just behind the P-61's 37.3secs of fire.

Concerning ROF it varies, with several factors Ie, mounting, feed, ammunition initial weight in feed trays, drag on the belt,
expenditure etc.

In fireing tests with the P-51B It was found that the 4 x .50 started fireing @ 700 - 800+rpm, at full weight ammo load, but as the ammunition was expended, & the weight on the belts and drag decreased & the ROF increased, by the end of the ammunition load the ROF had increased to over 950rpm.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

SteelMag
03-16-2004, 03:57 AM
p38 is one of the best ground pounders in the game.......hell its one of the few that can get away after dropping its eggs.

the dual .50 pods surprise me though.....any pics of that in real life??

VF-2_John_Banks
03-16-2004, 10:42 AM
Gib, thanks for the P-38! It's the best plane in FB (even with some bugs). It turns better than i expected (and remember from PAW and CFS2). I can turn with the Germans petty good and against the Jap planes, the L got the airbrakes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I have send so many planes to hell with the P-38 online, that all i can say is "wow". I have never been that hooked to a plane, while flying the russian crap planes. I've always prefered to fly US planes (i'm a German!), i loved/love the P-40 and the Mustang, but both can't reach the Lightning in any espect. Each time i "kill" a plane online, i think to myself: "This poor basturd was struck by Lightning." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Btw, there is no need for a special boost system in the P-38. It hard two turbo charger by General Electric, which were the secret of the P-38 speed and power. The US didn't ship the first 100 P-38's for the Brits with the Turbo Charger, to keep them in secret. Once a certain rpm has been reached, the Turbo Charger runs up and you rock da valley. Too bad that there is no visual animation of the turbo charger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Korolov
03-16-2004, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:

read up on 38 units you can find plenty of references to the use of 2,000lb bombs. it was a standard feature of the 38, a 4,000lb bomb load. units in the field modified 38s to carry 5,200lb bomb loads. now since this was a standard feature (4,000lb bomb load) why can it not be incorperated into the game? over 7,500 about 75% of all 38s produced could carry this load. we have a/c in this game that were prototypes and other a/c that saw very limited use, so why should we nerf the 38 any more than it already has been? atleast let it be a half decent ground attack a/c.

also the issue about the 38s guns is very valid. take up any similary armed a/c and shoot all the guns, the nose barely twitches around, now try this in the 38, it jumps around so badly that aiming is very difficult. I am not asking for 1,000meter kills here, but if a guy wants to spray all his ammo at an a/c that is 1000 meters away to maybe damage it a bit, well atleast give him a chance. the bullet dispersion is a valid issue. no other nose mounted high velocity gun set up in the game has such a large bullet dispersion as does the 38.

on the firing times, 500 rds per gun and 33 seconds in being quoted here a lot. that is amost 1,000 rpm. I thought the 50 cal M-2 had a rate of fire of 750-800 rpm or almost 45 seconds of fire time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say 2000lbs were never used, I said they weren't common enough to justify being put into this game. If the P-38 is going to get non-standard tweaks and boosts, then every other plane should too. Have you heard about the La-7s that were equipped with pulse jets?

You missed my point entirely about the weapon distance. Do you even know how ballistics work? If you have a P-38, flying at about 300mph, and a Fw-190 flying at about 325, with the Fw-190 1000m or so ahead of the P-38, the chances of a hit actually doing serious damage from that range is virtually nil. The P-38 would be lucky to chip the Fw-190's paint at that range and speed. Why do you think modern fighter aircraft use cannons and not machine guns?

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

Bull_dog_
03-16-2004, 11:38 AM
The 1000 yard kills were documented mostly in the pacific theater agains zero's, Oscars, and Tony's.... those aircraft had little to no armor.

Cannons are more powerful than .50's ...no one is arguing that but if you think a .50 has no killing power at 1000 yards your quite wrong about that...it has much less flatter trajectory and much less foot pounds of energy for sure but it can crack the block of an engine at 1000 yards, it can sink a san pan at 1000 yards, and it puncure lightly skinned aircraft, vehicles etc at 1000 yards....any modern sniper can verify that.

I think hitting the target at 1000 yards with enough bullets to get a hit in a vulnerable area (less vulnerable areas at 1000 yards) is the real problem... One incident I read about was a 90 degree deflection where a P-38 pilot simply started firing in front ofthe path of a zero. The zero flew through the bullet stream and went down....it was recognized that there was an extreme amount of luck involved but that is not the point....the point is that the bullet stream is condensed in a 30" circle and stays that way out to 1000 yards and beyond.

It is the dispersion that is the key not cannon vs. machine gun. Hitting a target with a P-38 should be similar to hitting a target with a P-47 at convergence...all the time and at any range... that is what all the belly-aching is about.

Fly the Yak 3 and imagine 2 more .50 caliber machine guns and twice the ammo load...that is how the P-38 should perform...it doesn't and all P-38 fans who have flown AEP know it if they've read any historical information.

I have heard very few complaints to the flight model so I think most lightning fans are pretty satisfied... I haven't heard any satisfied people regarding the bullet dispersion/vibration/count... except for the luftwaffe fans who are targets of the lightning.

Gibbage1
03-16-2004, 12:01 PM
I agree. A .50 cal round still had a LOT of its energy at 1000M. In fact, the M2 browning's effective range is 2400M. That means at 2400M, it still had plenty of energy to do damage. I believe this is "soft" targets like.... People. But aluminum is not very hard to punch through, and at 1000M it had more energy then 2400M. With the P-38 being such a stable gun platform, and the guns packed into such a tight area, it still had a very concentrated spread at 1000M. Sure. Against Fw-190's it wont do much, but what does? Zero's and 109's (the typical target) were a lot weaker and only took a few hits to down.

As for the question of the gunpods, I have two photo's I will try and post later.

PzKpfw
03-16-2004, 12:16 PM
The USAAF listed the .50 effective ranges from 300 - 900yrds. As to damage @ 1000yrds, when I was in the service & qualified on the Ma Duece, I hit an old M4 Sherman on the range at 800 - 1000yrds and I can tell you from personel observation the rounds did more then 'scratch the paint' I saw gouges in the side hull & side turret armor from my fire.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Gibbage1
03-16-2004, 01:09 PM
2400M is the listed range for the Browning M2. I dont know what gun USAAF is using for only 300-900 yards.

Gib

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2004, 01:12 PM
Bout to say... I've knocked holes through car bodies at 800-1000 yards on the range with an M-60! Nowhere near an M-2 at all! I won't say they'd have a lot of punch after holing the steel of those old cars but I wouldn'ta wanted to be in one! Those cars were not all rusted out either and that was 1975 when the stuff pulled out there wasn't new and had some thickness to it.

Still you have to do more than make holes in the skin to damage a fleeing plane. Couple that with how the surfaces you strike will tend to be at close angles with your bullet paths and that during the time of flight of your shots the target is moving away and that 1000m shot becomes more like 1200m... those .50's will have a lot less effect than at known effective ranges like 300m. How much damage do you get at 300m? Divide by a lot more than 4 at 1000.

Effective range with MG's increases with altitude. Bullet drop over range lessens with alt. Time of flight over range is less with alt. At over 8km alt the difference should be notable.


Neal

03-16-2004, 01:54 PM
The concept of "effective range" when we talk about aerial gunnery should be distinguished from the term "effective range" concerning the potency of the destructive qualities of a bullet concerning raw physics.

The "effective range" of aerial gunnery is limited by circumstances usually, which is generally quoted to be about 200 meters maximum for fighters, and 400 meters maximum for bombers, regardless of the weapon type.

PzKpfw
03-16-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
2400M is the listed range for the Browning M2. I dont know what gun USAAF is using for only 300-900 yards.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M2 ranges listed are "effective" @ 300yrds to a max @ 900yrds. Dean in AHT lits "effective" @ 300yrds @ max theoretical @ "900yrds".

Of course we know from some example USAAF AA reports that US fighter pilots in the ETO were scoreing killing hits with the K-14 at over 800yrds on occasions.

In the case of P-47s the optimal lethal range was 200yrds because thats how the guns convergance was set to create a X pattern density.

On the P-38 it was difrent as the gunds fired parallel streams, that formed a deadly density pattern as far as the bullets could go.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Bull_dog_
03-16-2004, 06:08 PM
I think most of us are now in violent agreement that the .50 had lethal killing power to thin skinned opponents out to 1000yards.

The hard thing is the gunnery accuracy...those gunsights are far from a rifle scope and I'd be challenged to hit a target the size of an aircraft with rifle...that is the issue.

Dispersion on wing mounted guns wouldn't allow for long shots. The concentrated firepower of machine guns and cannon found in the lightning could do the trick if you could aim well enough to get lucky. Furthermore, maybe this point is missed...the lightning carried so much ammo that pilots actually tried this! I doubt many Yak pilots fired thousand yard shots cause they didn't have any ammo to waste...not so with the P-38.

So what is next... I only hope that Oleg gives us the Lightning we all grew up reading about...500 rpg, a stable firing platform and no dispersion of bullets out to 1000 meters.

I know his team thrives on accuracy and uses the best data they can find...it shows in most of their modelling cause most of them are excellent. There are certain characteristics of aircraft that can't be captured in tables, on charts and in lab situations.

Feel...for example the control responsiveness of a Spitfire, the weight of elevator control at high speed, the "stable gun platform" comment, the ease of flight, the momentum of a rolling aircraft.... these things must be read, sorted out and somehow programmed in.... somewhere Oleg got information or made an assumption that the Lightning shook like a wet cat on a cold november day when firing... I just don't get that...nowhere have I ever read such a thing??? The ammo is probably off so if it is Oleg will fix it ok and hopefully with this next patch

Oleg has to make this plane right...it is just too popular on line to be shorted... or so I hope.

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2004, 08:12 PM
Rifle scope??? On a machinegun??? Maybe a little one but that's not how you use an MG! You look over the barrel from above it and see where the rounds hit then correct aim if you're on the ground.

With aerial gunnery you have 3 problems in aiming that limit range. 1) you are moving in 3 dimensions, 2) so's your target, 3) there's nothing usually around your target to see bullet impacts and judge where the tracers are in relation to the same.

Weird how effective is supposed to be 200m max when so many articles on convergence state about wings using 300 to 400, even with 303's or 50's.


Neal

SkyChimp
03-16-2004, 08:27 PM
The M2 .50 had an extreme range, the range at which forward movement has terminated, of 6,550 meters. It had an effective range, the range at which the penetration of an airframe or engine had destructive force, of 1,070 meters (3,500 feet).

These ranges are greater than for the M2 20mm Hispano, which had an extreme range of 4,570.

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

PlaneEater
03-16-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Rifle scope??? On a machinegun??? Maybe a little one but that's not how you use an MG! You look over the barrel from above it and see where the rounds hit then correct aim if you're on the ground.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've obviously never heard of Carlos Hathcock...

Hathcock was once accredited with hitting a NVA at 2,250 yards with a special scope-adapted .50 caliber machine gun converted to single shot operation.

Now, the single-shot adaptation notwithstanding (the differences from the .50s we have in game are nil accuracy-wise, especially when the gun is bolted to a multi-ton torqueless aircraft), the laser-bolt like trajectory of the .50 cal is indisputable.

From FAS.org:
The M2 machine gun on the M3 tripod provided a very stable firing platform. Together with its slow rate of fire and its traversing and elevating mechanism, the M2 was used to a very limited extent as a sniper weapon during the Vietnam war at fixed installations such as firebases. Snipers prefired the weapons at identifiable targets and worked the data into range cards insuring increased first-round accuracy. The 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry, 25th Infantry Division constructed 20-30 foot high shooting platforms, adding steel base plates and posts to further stabilize the M2 on the M3 tripod. Together with the use of Starlight night vision scopes, the M2 severely limited enemy movement within 900 yards (1,000m) of the perimeter of a firebase.
Maximum effective range: 2000 meters with tripod mount
Maximum range: 4.22 miles (6.8 kilometers)
Maximum effective range (pintle mount): is 1,830 meters

Lasst das Hollentor offen,
Es FRIERT HIER OBEN!

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-16-2004, 11:54 PM
Are there any news about the DM of the Lightning ?

I like the plane but the times I'm hunting it and filling it with mk108 ammo and see it fly unharmed (although covered in explosions...) is a bit confusing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides it's great work and looks fantastic.

Salut

crazyivan1970
03-17-2004, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Are there any news about the DM of the Lightning ?

I like the plane but the times I'm hunting it and filling it with mk108 ammo and see it fly unharmed (although covered in explosions...) is a bit confusing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides it's great work and looks fantastic.

Salut<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jabo. I can send you trk file with 4 P-38 aces AI destroyed with half of load MK108. I can send it to you if you wish... Clearly shows weak spots. 2-3 rounds and it`s over http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-17-2004, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hi Jabo. I can send you trk file with 4 P-38 aces AI destroyed with half of load MK108. I can send it to you if you wish... Clearly shows weak spots. 2-3 rounds and it`s over http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure ! I'm interested. I sometimes supected that i hit wrong places. Cockpit,.....Engines.... well, joking (more or less).
Can you PM me where I can download that tracks ?

Thanks in advance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BM357_ZoD
03-17-2004, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RavagerOCHW:
The YP80 doesnâ´t shake at all and it has 6 mgs and is not as heavy i think.

Oleg give the P38 the ammo that it had. Remove that stupid shake and give the L a better Rollrate than the J. That will not give us a "uberplane" but a fair one.

Ok the snapstalls are also mysterious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed for the most part. but i dont believe there is anything he can do about the snap stalls, this game i believe uses the same engine that sturmovik used and it was never designed for a twin engine or more aircraft. so i think we will just have to live with the snap stalls hopefully he will correct everythign else
also has anyone noticed the nasty clipping issues with the radiators? and in auto mode they continually cycle between full close and full open, and why a full mixture lever in the cockpit and no full mixture adjustment?(this problem exists in many other planes)

All kneel to ZoD
http://bm357.com/

WUAF_Co_Hero
03-17-2004, 04:38 AM
sure would be nice to see Oleg's response to all of these (mostly) valid and well backed arguements...

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

geetarman
03-17-2004, 12:39 PM
I'm with Bulldog on this one - the main faults of the 38, which do not seem accurate, are ammo load and (more importantly) platform stability.

Please, Oleg adjust accordingly. Everything else seems right. These issues, however, go right to the heart of fighter combat. Ammo and performance as a gun platform.

JFW
03-17-2004, 01:53 PM
I got in trouble with a few AI Yak3's at about 6k and handily outsped and outclimbed them. I tried to dive to get away, eventually (and had to momentarily use the dive brake to recover), then looked behind me after falling 6000 meters in a steep dive only to see their guns blazing at me from a distance less than half of what it was when the descent started.

Is that realistic and repeatable when not AI? Is that a bug or did the Yak-3 really dive that well?

crazyivan1970
03-17-2004, 10:22 PM
If you wanna start another topic about Yak3 Damage Modeling be my guest. But i don`t think it`s a good idea to highjack other people threads, especially when they waiting for some official answer. I hope you understand what i am talking about

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Gibbage1
03-17-2004, 10:41 PM
Thanks for saying it Ivan. I doubt I would have been as gracefull http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

Gibbage1
03-17-2004, 11:07 PM
Just a little something for people to read. PROOF that the P-38 had very concentrated firepower. The P-38 had MANY "instant aces" including one who downed 7 Ju-87's!. As the P-38 is now, it takes at least 2 passes to down a single Ju-87.

October 9, 1943, Bill Leverette led the destruction of a flight of Ju 87 Stukas over the Aegean Sea. On that day, the USAAF pilots claimed 16 Stukas destroyed, 7 by Leverette himslef.

7 Stuka's!!!!! Lets see you down 7 in IL2 with the P-38's current firepower.

Here is more.

Remember, an instant is is first, and 5th kill in 1 flight, so they dont have the training and gunmanship as someone like Heartman. They had the concentrated firepower of the P-38.

Jan. 11, Captain Shomo and his wingman, Lt. Paul Lipscomb, were heading north on the deck to photograph and strafe Japanese airfields at Tuguegarao, Aparri, and Laoag at the extreme north of Luzon. Over the exact spot where Shomo had picked up the Val, they caught a brief glimpse of enemy planes flying south above broken clouds at about 2,500 feet. How many enemy planes? What difference did it make? Shomo and Lipscomb pulled up through the clouds in an Immelmann and rolled out behind a Betty bomber that was being escorted by a squadron of fighters 11 Tonys and one Tojo.

On their first pass through the formation, Shomo and Lipscomb had the advantage of surprise. Shomo shot down four Tonys, then came up under the bomber, putting a burst into its belly. The flaming Betty headed for a crash landing with two Tonys still hanging to its right wing.

Shomo and Lipscomb pulled up in a tight vertical spiral to regain altitude while the Tojo latched onto Shomo's tail, firing until it stalled out and dove into the clouds. The Betty blew up as it bellied in, and the two escorting Tonys headed for the hills, staying on the deck. Shomo made a second diving pass, nailing each Tony with a short burst, for a total of seven victories. In less than six minutes, Bill Shomo had become an ace, the ultimate goal of every fighter pilot. Lipscomb got three-fifths of the way to that goal. The last three enemy fighters then disappeared into the clouds.

There are at least 5 instant aces that I know of. Many in the Pacific, but 1 instant ace got his with Stuka's, and another with IAR-80's. Those are NOT "rice paper" aircraft like Zero's and other Jap fighters. The 7 Stuka's itself says it all.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-18-2004, 04:20 AM
Since the JU87 suffered heavy losses over britain from the wrong ends of cal .303 I think we can call the JU87 a weak armored plane or let's say we agree on the term that it's less armored. So for me it's perfectly clear that in the face of 4 x cal .50 and 1 20mm it should be piece of cake to down these...

Korolov
03-18-2004, 12:26 PM
P-38L "Happy Jack's Go Buggy" adds 8 Ju-87D-5s to it's kill count.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_happygojack_stuka.zip

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

Gibbage1
03-18-2004, 03:17 PM
Korolov. You have aim. But do you think you could have pulled this off if it was your first air-2-air kill? My point was that it was this guys first air-2-air kill and he did not have the gunnery skill of us who have been shooting down HUNDREDS of aircraft. He most likly missed a lot and did not place his shots well. But the P-38 still had the power to take down the Ju's with the hits he did get.

Bull_dog_
03-18-2004, 05:57 PM
So Gib,

What do you think is the likelyhood of getting the vibration/dispersion and ammo count thing corrected?

I don't know if posting helps or not and I know you do communicate with Oleg once in awhile so being the proud designer of the Lightning maybe you'll have a little pull with Oleg...we can only hope.

Korolov
03-18-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Korolov. You have aim. But do you think you could have pulled this off if it was your first air-2-air kill? My point was that it was this guys first air-2-air kill and he did not have the gunnery skill of us who have been shooting down HUNDREDS of aircraft. He most likly missed a lot and did not place his shots well. But the P-38 still had the power to take down the Ju's with the hits he did get.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you wanted to see someone take out 7 Ju-87s with the current firepower...

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

Gibbage1
03-18-2004, 07:24 PM
I dont know. He has his mind set on the damn thing shaking like a Harley with bad gas. I showed him a photo of the night time fire test of the P-38 and all the tracers are straight like lasers with no dispursion. He also said the ballistics on the .50 cal make it impossible to be able to hit or hurt anything at 1000M and I gave him proof that the M2 hits stuff at 2400M. I also gave him the link to this thread. As for the ammo, its a clear bug. He said its not linked to the roll rate at all. But I think thats him admiting its a bug without saying its a bug. Who knows. All we can do is whine and wait.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
So Gib,

What do you think is the likelyhood of getting the vibration/dispersion and ammo count thing corrected?

I don't know if posting helps or not and I know you do communicate with Oleg once in awhile so being the proud designer of the Lightning maybe you'll have a little pull with Oleg...we can only hope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
03-18-2004, 07:36 PM
Oleg is probably right about not doing much damage to anything at 1000m, but hitting at that range is another thing. Has he given a legit reason to make the M2 scatter as much as it does?

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

WhiskeyRiver
03-18-2004, 07:43 PM
We have supplied proof supporting our position that the P-38 was a very stable gun platform and that the 50 BMG cartridge is capable of accurate fire past 1000 meters. Where is Oleg's proof that the 50 is inaccurate and the P-38 shakes badly when the guns are fired.

In a normal debate both sides present evidence supporting their respective positions. If Oleg disagrees with us I would like to see evidence that supports his position.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Gibbage1
03-18-2004, 07:44 PM
No. Im not trying to kill targets at 1000M. Im just using it as an example. It was stable enough to keep a good spread to kill stuff at 1000M. It did happen. Many times.

Just fire at the ground 300M in front of you. The spread is about 4-5 feet wide when it should be 1-2 feet.

PzKpfw
03-18-2004, 07:44 PM
Their is no negative reports on P-38 stabilization I can find. Apperently it was easy to trim etc. Basicly a joy to fly & do areobatics in etc.

And a good gun platform, it would have to have been for Bong to score kills in as by his own admission he was a poor shot. Seem a shame just to havr to turn realism options off just to get a realistic model for the P-38.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 07:54 PM
If they was up here then I apologize, but what convergences are being used? And that's another tricky one since convergence distance also sets gun elevations to cross the zero at range.

I sure hope ther's no trick to running the Lightnings without the shake. I noticed some bobbing but I only ran it a little so far and liked the flying part. Turning nose low worked better than I thought it should except for the huge alt loss which I expect in that plane.


Neal

Jettexas
03-19-2004, 12:05 AM
Great AEP, great sim, great plane and thanks to the many prior posters more knowledgeable than I , for the many insightful posts.
Forgive me if I duplicate their points or state the obvious but there is indeed strength in numbers and man...I gotta jump on this bandwagon with more than just "bump".........
The dispersion indeed seems whacked out-
respectfully request a fix- or, alternately a coherent defense of the way the guns are currently modelled. Like the multi-page defenses lavished on some of the other (and often less valid) performance concerns brought forth by the community.

Generally dispersion is worse than the spread on wing mounted guns of the same caliber, in single engine craft of known lesser stability.I cannot speak historically, but rather offer these opininions based on the the standard set and observed elsewhere within the game context, which is after all the only relevant arena for comparison.
Agree with the other posters too,that the shake , relative to the other aircraft carrying similar armament, seems a bit over the top.

Given the limitations of the flight model I wouldnt think making the guns and cannon actually hit the same place, (or at least close) would transform the 38 into some kind of Uber beast of the sky?
Perhaps this is the concern, that prompted this..um...hmmmmm..."nuetering"..for lack of a better word? Didnt we go through this same debate a while back with the other US heavyweight favorite the P-47??? hmmmm

Thanks,

http://home.austin.rr.com/davislanedavis/il2sig4.jpg

Aaron_GT
03-19-2004, 02:26 AM
Accurate to 1000m - not very likely on a
plane bobbing around in they sky trying to
hit another plane bobbing around in the sky.
Hits at that distance are theoretically possible
but are highly unlikely. That they happened
does not indicate that they are likely on an
individual case basis. Or in other words, as with
the lottery, if you have enough samples there is
a good chance of one of them satisfying the
conditions. Likewise with gunnery the extremes
of good or bad performance tend to get
remembered.

CHDT
03-19-2004, 02:51 AM
"Oleg is probably right about not doing much damage to anything at 1000m, but hitting at that range is another thing."


I'm not so sure.

I've been gunner on a 20mm cannon and its distance of efficiency was between 800 and 1200 meters.

I've also used assaut guns in its normal range of 150-300 or 50's machine gun at 300-400 meters and all these guns made great damages at these distances.

For me, this is perhaps a thing I would like to see improved in a next patch. Not to make the weapons stronger (in spite of the 20mm's and the 50's look a little bit weak) but to make the weapons keep a little bit more their efficiency in the 200-400 meters range.

Cheers,

Aaron_GT
03-19-2004, 05:25 AM
CHDT - I am guessing you weren't firing at
things with relative velocities to you of
hundreds of miles an hour, with surfaces
very obliquely presented?

WhiskeyRiver
03-19-2004, 05:30 AM
Gibbage,

Can you post that photo of the night firing test please. I don't have a scanner and my copy of Martin Caidin's book is 2000 miles away.

AaronGT,

fire the Russian or Japanese 12.7mm guns and watch the spread. Fire the US 12.7mm. There is a very noticeable difference. This is what we want fixed.

I won't even go into the differences between German and British 30 cal's and a certain "green ray gun"

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

CHDT
03-19-2004, 07:27 AM
"CHDT - I am guessing you weren't firing at
things with relative velocities to you of
hundreds of miles an hour, with surfaces
very obliquely presented?"

My "real-life" targets: Vampire, C-3605, Hunter, PC-9 etc... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know the ballistic of an AA ground cannon is not the same of an on-board cannon, but anyway a cannon shots at more than 200 meters still makes damage!

AirBrake
03-19-2004, 07:42 AM
Hello everyone,
has anyone found reference to the stall
characteristics of the P-38 in pilot accounts?

The cartwheel effect in the game during a stall does not seem to mesh with what I have read in the past concerning the P-38's stall characteristics. I can get out of
a stall in a P-39 more easily than I can
the P-38, but then again I suck!

Thanks

Aaron_GT
03-19-2004, 09:50 AM
My apologies, CHDT - I assumed you
were firing at gound targets from a vehicle
mounted gun similar to that on a Bradley or
something.

Aaron_GT
03-19-2004, 09:53 AM
Actually I find in FB that cannon shots
do damage - it's just hard to actually
land them on the target! I find it better
to open up at 200m or less, and break off
about 100m, simply because more of the
rounds fired are likely to hit the target.
Looking through tracks on arcade, times
at say 300m when I've thought I've landed
a good series of hits tend to turn out to be
the flash of maybe 2 cannon rounds hitting
something not very vital! It's not getting
so focussed on the target that I fly into it
is now the problem for me! (Well, that
and being hopeless at evasives)

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 02:20 PM
If there's a lot of dispersion then it's impossible to get a good % of hits at anything but close range no matter how well you aim.

You can see this easily by setting a wings guns plane to close convergence and firing at twice that or more. Or, some people see it with the P-38's which I haven't tried 400m shots with... yet.


Neal

Gibbage1
03-19-2004, 04:17 PM
As for pilots able to score killing shots on Zero's in the Pacific at 1000M, here is the trick. They put up a stream of lead and let the enemy fly through it. I have read quotes from two differant pilots who did it. The target was flying paralell to them, so they pointed the nose were the enemy was going, fired, and let the target meet the bulletes. This is just proof that there was little dispersion even at 1000M. I doubt you can hit a FW-200 with this trick in IL2 because of the dispersion.

Gib

PzKpfw
03-19-2004, 04:18 PM
The below excerpt from the Ordanice fighter armament report given @ the *Joint Fighter Confrence, some may find interesting concering dispersion or the lack of Ie,:

In the F7F or the P-38 you can put all your guns in the nose; fireing parallel streams of lead, your bullets all going out forming a lethal density pattern as far as the bullets go.

*See: Report of Joint Fighter Confrence NAS Patuxent River, MD 16 - 23 October 1944 p.170

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 06:09 PM
Good find John!

Perhaps the convergence code or data for the P-38 is broken? Or is it the shake?


Neal

Bull_dog_
03-19-2004, 07:00 PM
When/if we get the shake and dispersion fixed, I suspect head on's with the Lightning will be a bad deal for enemies...

All aircraft can do them obviously, but the Lightning could start shooting earlier and expect to do major damage. There are endless accounts of Lightning pilots getting head on kills in the pacific theater against Ki-43's and Zeke's.

I don't know if head on accounts lends any credence to the posts here...I know that Fw's were feared as were Lightnings and other radial engined aircraft...but especially the Lightning...I suspect it had something to do with 2 engines and lots of concentrated firepower in the nose.

PzKpfw has hit the nail on the head...along with Gibs picture...I don't if we can paint a more objective picture of reality than that. I would like this post to stay alive until the patch comes out to see if Oleg has given us the Lightning we paid for....so bump

Valathar
03-19-2004, 08:49 PM
I want to add that for me the engine sound is too loud, I understand that it is a twin engined so it will have more noise than a single engined, but actually is so loud that make the speakers vibrate and "walk" in the table, even you barelly can hear the pilot messages. Ok you can get rid of a problem by lowering manualy the sound of the speaker but it lower all the sounds and when flying another plane you have to put it up again.
Same with the B-17 that is disgusting keep on an external view on it.

Bull_dog_
03-19-2004, 09:09 PM
Tried something tonight...don't know why i didn't do this before...i turned off the head shake to test the dispersion...

I was curious to see whether the head shake was the cause of the dispersion or were they two separate issues...I would say they are two separate issues as it seemed to be too much dispersion even with the shaking out...of course i'm not sure if the shaking is just the pilots head or the whole plane, but I always felt it was the whole plane.

Many probably already knew this, but I didn't. I'll just fly off line with no head shake for now.

WhiskeyRiver
03-19-2004, 10:22 PM
-Bulldog, you are correct

This is a 2 part problem. #1 is the nose shake. By that I mean the actual nose of the aircraft moving around when the guns are fired.

#2 is the dispersion of the 50 cals. This is a problem with all the US aircraft.

Even with head shake turned off bullets are all over the place.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Gibbage1
03-20-2004, 04:02 AM
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg

See any dispursion in that photo?

Kurfurst__
03-20-2004, 06:28 AM
Good photo, but it doesnt take into account that on bore sighting runs the airplane was fixed down on the ground. In the air, hwere the aircraft floats, the kickback would, in any case, produce SOME dispersion. It could be the centre of gravity is somewhat oddly modelled for multi engine aircraft, see the Bf 110 for example. Lots of shaking, even from the tiny 7.92mm MGs. Even though I dont think it was too much of a trouble in the P-38s case - centerlined guns, large plane etc. But there will be some shaking from the guns, 'be sure'.

CHDT
03-20-2004, 06:32 AM
"Good photo, but it doesnt take into account that on bore sighting runs the airplane was fixed down on the ground."

That's true. For instance, AA cannons must be firmly fixed on the ground with bars and the tube firmly maintaned too during firing.

Cheers,

LEXX_Luthor
03-20-2004, 06:49 AM
No P~38 shake here. Pull trigger and smooth as silk.

But I also have full speed at sea level and fast roll rate so maybe I have a Lucky Athalon+ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2004, 06:53 AM
Find a plane or so with centerline multiple cannon and MG's then see if it shakes. Even if it's lighter and theguns/cannon are wider seperated.


Neal

chris455
03-20-2004, 07:03 AM
ALL WEAPONS feature some dispersion, even when tested in a fixed benchrest or with different projectile types. Automatic weapons tend to place their shots within a "cone" of fire, that cones diameter being referred to in militiary terms as "the beaten zone". (at point of impact, at which it typically assumes the form of an elipse).
I think what Gibbage and others are saying, and I concur, is that dispersion is carried to an unrealistic extreme in FB. There is little question of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!

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

JFW
03-20-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
If you wanna start another topic about Yak3 Damage Modeling be my guest. But i don`t think it`s a good idea to highjack other people threads, especially when they waiting for some official answer. I hope you understand what i am talking about

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean't that there seemed to be some discrepency between P38 diving speed and the Yak, but I appologize if my post was a distraction.

Aaron_GT
03-20-2004, 11:55 AM
Gibbage wrote:
" This is just proof that there was little dispersion even at 1000M"

It proves nothing! If you fired a lot
of shot gun rounds (high dispersion from
the pellets) and someone wandered into the
stream of pellets and was hit, you wouldn't
say that it proved that shotgun pellet
dispersion was low! If you put enough rounds
out in enough roughly appropriate directions
you will hit, but it says little about
dispersion.

Also the photograph doesn't really prove
much either. The photograph is taken from
behind and above, making the lines foreshortened
which will tend to visually reduce the effect
of any drop of the rounds. We don't know how
many tracers were captured in the picture (it
may have been one per gun) and we don't know
the convergence that was set to get an idea
of scale. What we can see in the photograph
is that as the distance from the nose
increases, the lines made by the tracers
appears to widen. This implies that more
than one tracer round has indeed been
captured (and we are limited to looking at
dispersal of a few tracer rounds, not all
rounds fired) and that dispersion is present.
Again, without knowing the convergence set
it is hard from the angle the photo was taken
to determine the dispersion.

I'm not saying that dispersion is high, just
that the picture doesn't really give enough
information.

Korolov
03-20-2004, 12:22 PM
I was curious, so I did a convergence test on the ground, on a smokestack. I was 230 meters from the tower, with MG convergence set to 180 meters.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calspread.jpg

Make your own conclusions. The bottom part of the hits probably wouldn't exsist if my MG convergence was at 230 meters.

EDIT: More pics:

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calnight.jpg

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calnight2.jpg

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calnight3.jpg

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38_50calnight4.jpg

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

[This message was edited by Korolov on Sat March 20 2004 at 11:39 AM.]

Bull_dog_
03-20-2004, 01:09 PM
maybe it'd be worth backing off to say 800 meters and see if it is similar...maybe turn off head shake cause that will cause a natural spread.

I have a hard time with the scales here...it could be good or it could be bad depending on the size of the smoke stack...

Based on what I know...if the guns were perfectly still and perfectly boresighted all shots would land in a 30" circle as a rule of thumb. That would grow as the bullets extended...but not much...maybe to 40" at 500 meters and I'm just guessing at that based on what I know about shooting rifles.

I suspect there was very little vibration induced dispersion in the Lightning... that is what Gib's picture illustrates. In flight, would the recoil of 4 symetrically aligned machine guns and 1 20mm cannon cause so much vibration... my answer is no it wouldn't.

Why do we think that...pilot accounts, testing, photos such as gib's, rare but true accounts of kills at long range, head on kills and gun camera footage.

Gun camera footage is one source we haven't talked about much...I've seen film (as we all have) of fighters hitting targets on the ground. It is real easy to tell which film is from a lightning based on the tracer fire being tightly packed and snaking along the ground. It looks very different from that of wing mounted gunfire.

The most compelling case to me is that of relative modelling...however an aircraft is modelled, it is most important that it is relative to its competition...that is if the Fw's roll rate is too fast..it is much less important if all aircraft are a little too fast. The issue arises when a Fw can out roll a spit in real life, but in the game it can't.

That is why I brought up the discussion about the Yak-3. There is absolutly no way an aircraft as light as a Yak-3 can fire the guns it has with such accuracy, tight spread and little vibration or dispersion but a Lightning can't!!!! So if we're gonna have shaking aircraft...lets make em all shake...or lets not. Off line, I will start flying without head shake...but that doesn't take into account the bullet dispersion...online, I would do so if I had my own server but since I don't I'll have to live with it and keep posting.

The patch will be out soon so lets hope Oleg tightens the lightning up.

Gibbage1
03-20-2004, 01:23 PM
I will try to get P-38 guncam footage. This will prove two things. Gun spread and gun shake. On all P-38's but the L the guncap is mounted in the nose below the 20MM. Its safe to assume that if there is any shake, it would rattle the HELL out of the little guncam hay?

As for further proof that Oleg is high on the P-38. Fly the LAGG-3 1941. It has two .50 and two 7.62 plus a 20MM in a similar config to the P-38. The LAGG-3 has more firepower and takes down aircraft a LOT quicker then the P-38. Do an arcade test with the little white dots. The LAGG-3 places all its shots within a square foot at about 200M. The P-38 is around 4-5 feet at the same distance. Can someone verify this?

Copperhead310th
03-20-2004, 03:23 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifis it just me or did the FM's for the p-38's get mixed up with the 109Z?

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Willey
03-20-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/P38_21_action.jpg

See any dispursion in that photo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say this photo proves 2 things:

1. The muzzle flashes in FB are way overmodelled
2. The .50 M2 bullet spreading cone is overmodelled. It's dispersion remembers me of the MK 108... Look at the LaGGs guns. The ShKAS spread some, the 20mm spreads hardly and I'd say the 12,7mm don't spread at all...

The nose wobbling around is another issue, but most certainly the dispersion is too much.

PzKpfw
03-20-2004, 04:13 PM
I don't know whats up but their are no pilot reports, evaluations, gunnery reports etc to support any violent shakes etc, while fireing the guns, I can find.

The P-38 was considered a very steady gun platform, due to the location of it's armament. The only negative comments I have found from the ETO concern 'getting the nose on target'.

And this refers to manouvering with smaller German fighters not, shake etc. As to dispersion their basicly was none as evident from the text I quoted, from the JFC, as convergence and dispersion affected wing gun mounted fighters much more then it did the P-38s centralized,n unsynchronised weapon sytems.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Aaron_GT
03-20-2004, 05:17 PM
Korolov,

A better test would be
to fire at the target at
convergence range. By
firing at a target outside
convergence you can
create the appearance of
dispersion. At convergence
all rounds should (assuming
point harmonisation) would
land at a point.

Without firing at
convergence you need to know
the base distance between
the guns to do the
required trig to take out
the effect of divergence
due to the convergence
setting, so it is really a
lot better to do the test at
convergence. You also need
to know the chimney
dimensions to calculate
the dispersion.

p1ngu666
03-20-2004, 06:10 PM
from my point of view n info ive got/remmber
the p38 had the gun cam RIGHT by the 20mm cannon, so fire that and itll shake to hell whatever
theres also torque aswell, id expect some very mild torque cos engine rotates same way but have gearboxes?
stalls are horrid, against pilot comments.
it pitches alot when i try and aim tho that could be me
oh and WW1 vickers machine guns had a range of 3-4 km/miles im not sure... thats effective, BUT u are lobing the rounds so someone closer wont get hit. interestingly range has gone down as time goes past.
ull chew up a soft person, assuming u hit at 1000m. plane is a bit :\/ but doable.
109 had NO dispersion from its guns a while back, someone tested all guns in il2 fb.
dispersion will help us hit, but not get the killer effect. given most ppl here are pretty hardcore and can by now fire well thats what we want +need http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif its not gonna make something uber..
i MIGHT Have some guncam footage gib http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
be guess the fighter tho i finks :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
03-20-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
from my point of view n info ive got/remmber
the p38 had the gun cam RIGHT by the 20mm cannon, so fire that and itll shake to hell whatever
theres also torque aswell, id expect some very mild torque cos engine rotates same way but have gearboxes?
stalls are horrid, against pilot comments.
it pitches alot when i try and aim tho that could be me
oh and WW1 vickers machine guns had a range of 3-4 km/miles im not sure... thats effective, BUT u are lobing the rounds so someone closer wont get hit. interestingly range has gone down as time goes past.
ull chew up a soft person, assuming u hit at 1000m. plane is a bit :\/ but doable.
109 had NO dispersion from its guns a while back, someone tested all guns in il2 fb.
dispersion will help us hit, but not get the killer effect. given most ppl here are pretty hardcore and can by now fire well thats what we want +need http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif its not gonna make something uber..
i MIGHT Have some guncam footage gib http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
be guess the fighter tho i finks :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early -38's had a nose mounted gun camera. the L model's gun camera is mounted on the left pylon stub.

Each engine rotates in opposite directions not the gearboxes.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

p1ngu666
03-20-2004, 06:31 PM
really? :O
no reason for the torque then :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-20-2004, 07:09 PM
In general the .50 cal spreads quite a bit. I've moved my gun convergence to 300 meters now and that tends to help but I've noticed that what should be a tight arc on the .50cal is more like a very wide cone. I'm all for the limitations of aerial gunnery but I think only the 108 spreads more than this ...the MG151/20 doesn't nearly as much and perhaps the MG-FF is about the same (but that was historically low muzzle rate and other factors which make me believe that isn't all that wrong).

I have no idea whats exactly accurate but with a P-38 or a YP-80 its very hard to get a good well aimed shot off. Its much easier to do in Yak-9's.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2004, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
really? :O
no reason for the torque then :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two props making I think the word is p-factor in climbs and tight turns. It's where the prop isn't facing directly into the flight path, you have the effective AOA of the blades differing as they go around. Since they rotate opposite, the p-factors oppose.

Also the torque cancels at center but it's still two seperated torques, unlike some planes with twin counter-rotating props on the same axis. It's close but not the same as none.


Neal

p1ngu666
03-20-2004, 08:39 PM
ah, i knew that but thnx http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-20-2004, 09:06 PM
Just a thought but I wonder if the .50cal has a single data entry for it and all of the values used to create the effects and dispersion of a wing mounted gun (I'm sure wingmounted sprays more and indeed you WANT it to spray a bit more) are carried over and impact the cowl mounted guns like on the P-39 and the P-63 as well as the nose mounted P-38 and YP-80.

I guess they probably can't win unless there are two entirely separate entries.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Korolov
03-20-2004, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Just a thought but I wonder if the .50cal has a single data entry for it and all of the values used to create the effects and dispersion of a wing mounted gun (I'm sure wingmounted sprays more and indeed you WANT it to spray a bit more) are carried over and impact the cowl mounted guns like on the P-39 and the P-63 as well as the nose mounted P-38 and YP-80.

I guess they probably can't win unless there are two entirely separate entries.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of spread and wing guns, you could just set close convergence and shoot beyond that range.

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

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 03:56 AM
A screenshot says 1000 words.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/spread.jpg

Typical. My web page takes a dump when I post the file. UGH! It may be back when you read this.

Bull_dog_
03-21-2004, 08:22 AM
I don't see the screenshot unfortunately.

Finally got into a server last night that had settings I enjoy with a little distance between the bases. The server still had open aircraft on both sides but there weren't too many ki's, 109Z's and La's flying around and i actually scored several kills without being shot down in the P-38J... I like the J better than the L mostly cause of the extra speed and I tend to get stupid when I fight with that dive break....way too easy to start laying on it and get real slow.

Bull_dog_
03-21-2004, 09:56 AM
that is odd...now I see the screen shot.

Well a picture is worth a thousand words...

The Lagg was a lot lighter than the lightning and has no counter rotating props either

WhiskeyRiver
03-21-2004, 11:28 AM
Good pictures Gib. Those sum up the problem pretty accurately

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 11:40 AM
Gibbage - good screenshots.

Was each plane in pretty much stable flight
at the time? (As that's the wildcard in the
tests - static tests are better, but finding
a target to hit with both a tail dragger and a
nose wheel plane ia going to be hard).

Of course it might be that the Lagg has
undermodelled dispersion, the P38 has overmodelled dispersion, or both!

I still think the thing to do is to set up
the P38 at a range equal to convergence from
a target of known dimensions, mark the sighting
point, fire a short burst, not all hits. Repeat.
Don't fire a long burst as this will tend to
move the plane. It requires lots of separate
mission repeats with short bursts. Use the
central sighting point to overlay all the
trials, and then measure the dispersion.
Compare the dispersion against that expected for
the .50 (in a plane, not bench mounted rigidly).
See if this is excessive or not.

Repeat for Lagg.

Not having AEP yet I can't do this myself at
the moment.

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 11:41 AM
Gibbage - what were the convergence settings
in those pictures?

clint-ruin
03-21-2004, 11:50 AM
Several thousand more words:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/dispersion.html

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

Gibbage1
03-21-2004, 12:32 PM
As for my test, it was late and sorry to not post the conditions.

The test's were done in-flight. Both aircraft had the same fuel loadout and set too 100-100 convergance. Nose mounted guns are boarsighted.

Both aircraft were fired from there aproximate rage (by sight) at about the same dive angle at around 400KPH. Since this was done in-air, it was not exact. But close enough. I had 3 Me-210's on the runway as static for this test.

In the dive, the crosshairs were pointed ON the target.

The P-38 itself was more stable directionally and was a better gun platform in-game then the LAGG. The LAGG's nose tended to wander when I was ligning up the shot. But the LAGG had NO shake at all. Even with its wandering nose, the spread was a LOT more concentrated and accurate. Also a lot more powerful.

Try it yourself. Turn on arcade and shoot something in both aircraft. You will see the LAGG-3 1941 has a VERY tight pattern were the P-38 is spread out. Even at 100M.

Gunner_361st
03-21-2004, 06:36 PM
Bumpity Bump. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-21-2004, 07:14 PM
The following information is from the book "The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns" by David Miller.

"Browning 0.50 inch M2HB

Country of Origin - USA

Length of the entire gun - 65 inches (1,651 mm)

Barrel Length - 45 inches (1,143 mm)

Weight(gun) - 84 pounds (38.1 KG) *Weight is the total weight of the weapon, plus (where applicable) one empty magazine, but less bayonet (if fitted). For heavy machine guns the tripod weight is given separately.

Weight(tripod) - 44 pounds (19.09 KG)

Caliber - 0.50 inch (12.7mm)

Rifling - 8 grooves, r/hand

Operation - Recoil

Feed - Belt

Cooling - Air

Cyclic rate - 500 rounds per minute. (This is the theoretical rate at which an automatic weapon would fire with a continuous and unlimited ammunition supply.)

Muzzle Velocity - 2,930 feet per second (894 meters/second) *Muzzle velocity is an approximate figure.

Range - 2,600 yards (2,378 meters)

"John Browning's M2 first appeared in 1933 and was intended principally for use on multiple anti-aircraft mounts but there was a version for use as a tank turret gun and yet another for use on a ground mount. It worked on the usual Browning system of short recoil. When the cartridge was fired the barrel and breechblock, securely locked together, recoiled for just under an inch when the barrel was stopped by means of an oil buffer. At this stage the pressure had dropped sufficiently for the breechblock to unlock and continue to the rear under the initial impetus given to it by the barrel, extracting and ejecting the empty case and extracting the next live round from the belt. Once the rearward action had stopped, the compressed return spring then took over and drove the working parts sharply forward, chambering the round, locking the breechblock, and firing the cartridge, after which the cycle continued as long as the trigger was pressed and there were rounds in the belt. The gun would fire automatic only, although some were equipped with bolt latches to allow single rounds to be fired if necessary. Although this gun functioned well enough mechanically it showed an unfortunate tendency to overheat, so that 70 or 80 rounds was about the maximum which could be fired continuously without a considerable pause for allowing the barrel to cool. This was of course unacceptable so a heavy barreled version (M2HB) was adopted, the weapon illustrated being one of these. The extra metal in the barrel made a considerable difference and this new gun was most effective, being extensively used by the United States and many other countries in the course of World War II and all subsequent campaigns up to the present day."

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

03-21-2004, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
The .50 M2 bullet spreading cone is overmodelled. It's dispersion remembers me of the MK 108... Look at the LaGGs guns. The ShKAS spread some, the 20mm spreads hardly and I'd say the 12,7mm don't spread at all...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If only the dispersion was cone-shaped. The bullets spread out in a square pyramid shape.

The dispersal model currently uses random X and Y offsets.

To be correct it should use a random angle theta and a dispersal r where r follows the shape of half a bell curve.

paradoxbox
04-09-2004, 03:28 PM
Bump

TAGERT.
04-09-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. #1, the mirror does need to be fixed. I never put a mirror on my model. That was Oleg's crew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gibb.. From what I can tell.. that object you see in the mirror is the mirror itself!

But not the same mirror.

As you know all too well, there is the mirror in the 3D cockpit art.. and the mirror in the 3D body art.. The 3D cockpit art gets *allined* to the 3D body art.

And that is the basic problem.. The POV of the 3D cockpit art is TOO FAR FORWARD relitive to the 3D body art.. Which places the BODY mirror farther back relitve to the cockpit, thus, you see it when looking back.

So.. did Oleg's guys mess up the alingment when they added the mirror?

Another thing I noticed.. After you take some damage.. if you look left or right.. you can SEE INTO the wing cavitys.. As of the wings were mounted to the side panel glass instead of a few feet below that.. If you need a picture of it.. let me know

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

VMF513_Sandman
04-12-2004, 04:30 AM
ever notice that this ship likes to bounce on practically any landings..seems all aircraft now do this

WUAF_Badsight
04-12-2004, 05:20 AM
if your smooth it will settle onto the ground sweetly

but then again hardly any rushed DF landings are taken with that amount of care

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-12-2004, 06:17 AM
After flying the lightning for about two or three days, I have yet to have a problem landing smoothly, if I'm paying attention.

Heck, I have landed it smoothly without damaging bounces, with literally... ONE controll surface (ailerons), and an engine on fire, with wing damage.

The 38 is a bit more touchy about it than the others, but that's because most are used to landing 109's and other non tricycle gear a/c.

Try landing with your nose constanly pointed about 1 1/2in. over the horizon, such that our back wheels land before your front wheel, but not so much that you're scraping the tail on the ground.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

paradoxbox
04-12-2004, 09:08 AM
You NEED to land at BELOW 100mph! If you try to land faster than that, you're going to bounce. Come in over the fence at 110 miles per hour with full flaps having been dropped at 120 or 130. Once over the runway cut power completely and hold the nose level to bleed off speed like a modern conventional prop plane. Once you reach 95mph the plane will start to settle in, pull up gently but firmly on the stick about 2 feet off the ground to get the nose gear up. The main gear will touch down first and your speed should be around 89mph. Let the nose gear down gently and raise flaps immediately, hold the nose up (but not off the ground) for aerodynamic braking and to prevent gear stress. Brake by pumping and keep the aircraft centered.

Nothing to it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ZG77_Nagual
04-12-2004, 09:24 AM
She's a dream to land - pretty much anywhere.