PDA

View Full Version : Video showing P-38 Maneuverability



AirBrake
05-15-2004, 07:41 PM
Hello everyone, I hope you are all doing well.
The link below is to Lefty Gardner's
P-38 "White Lightning". You can download video
of it in flight to see how maneuverable a P-38
actually is.

Enjoy!

http://www.p38whitelightnin.com/gallery/

AirBrake
05-15-2004, 07:41 PM
Hello everyone, I hope you are all doing well.
The link below is to Lefty Gardner's
P-38 "White Lightning". You can download video
of it in flight to see how maneuverable a P-38
actually is.

Enjoy!

http://www.p38whitelightnin.com/gallery/

Aviar
05-15-2004, 07:58 PM
Did you notice that the nosewheel was steerable? It was turning even before the plane started to taxi. Would love to have that in FB.

Edit: It looks like the pilot was steering the nosewheel with his right hand, as his left was operating the throttle. You can clearly see it as he is rolling down the runway....neither hand is on the stick (wheel).

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 Sat May 15 2004 at 07:17 PM.]

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-15-2004, 08:00 PM
Yeep! Already seen it and it clearly shows the P-38s rollrate is undermodeled. But I guess its not enough proof for Oleg and team http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

T_O_A_D
05-15-2004, 08:36 PM
Pretty cool vid. I wish our lighting had that sound quality. Awsum hearing it start and wind up. Did you notice the left eng backfired 3 times during taxi in the larger video? Funny that same engine failed. I wonder if its normal to hear them Backfire.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Aviar
05-15-2004, 08:46 PM
Well, if the smoke in the cockpit didn't bother the pilot, what's a few backfires? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

609IAP_Recon
05-15-2004, 08:48 PM
yeah, sounds great.

great stuff - thanks guys

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-15-2004, 08:59 PM
I have some guncam footage from german 2 109s on a p38j at slower speeds, the 109s cant turn with the p38 becuase of how well its elevator effect is at slow speed. Both made many passes and couldnt get hits and both left due to fuel in the 109s the p38 made it home safely.

Oleg should really take a look at this video of the p38s manuverabilty and stalls. The 38 did not do that well in europe becuase of unexperienced pilots against vetern german pilots. Later in the war it was the other way around.

every US plane in this game is underpar with the exception of the p51 p39 and p63 which have issues that are better then they should be which i will not discuss to ruin the thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 190 needs too be looked at as well it had great elevator effectiveness, almost identical to the mustangs, long thin elevator, great for high and low speed effectiveness. 109z.

Does anyone have proof of the bf110g2 being a tighter turner then a 190

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

lil_labbit
05-15-2004, 09:04 PM
Very nice... but don't forget this:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html
...
And I even want my Fokker g1a more now...
d*mn
http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/g1a.jpg
http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/remarkable.jpg

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

BS87
05-15-2004, 09:07 PM
What can we learn from this video?



Wingtip smoke is clearly undermodled.

RicknZ
05-15-2004, 09:09 PM
I have a autobiography of a 190D9 pilot stating how relieved he was when he only faced p38's, in his words p38 were easy kills whereas he feared the p47 and p51's.

What does that tell us? About the same amount as the previous posts in this threads.

I think Oleg modelled it right and personnal accounts, account for little in the face of physics.

Korolov
05-15-2004, 09:25 PM
That is a earlier P-38, either a F, G or H. Probably one of the photo recon versions as well. Hence, no cameras, no guns, no ammo in the nose. Thats no .50 cal MG, plus the 20mm, and 2,150 rounds of ammo. Thats a big weight difference, and it shows. They probably didn't load up max fuel either.

So, until you have a F-5 with cameras in the nose, you can't compare them. As far as I'm concerned, the P-38 is a very manuverable plane, moreso for a fighter of it's size.

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

Korolov
05-15-2004, 09:27 PM
Also - earlier P-38 models which used the intakes and cooling system used on the P-38E-H suffered from backfires and heating issues.

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

Eagle_361st
05-15-2004, 09:32 PM
Very cool video, thanks for the link.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-15-2004, 11:44 PM
yeah olegs always right blah blah look how much the damn FM change from patch to patch common man look at the dive speeds look at the wrong roll rates accelarations glide slopes, its ridiculous that you people can say everything is correct because oleg says you is wrong. That compressed deltawood is 10x stronger then heavily armored 190s and p47s.

Go to nara and buy the documents for yourself and see how
wrong olegs unknown secret documents are.
Do the tests yourself with a stop watch.

We dont even have the correct pure basics of flight, and half the aircraft cant use thier only advantages.

Just go here you can find most the information and charts you need,

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&offset=0&mode=browse&boolean=or&boolean_terms=or&date=1944&orderby=type&order=ASC&limit=25

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
I have a autobiography of a 190D9 pilot stating how relieved he was when he only faced p38's, in his words p38 were easy kills whereas he feared the p47 and p51's.

What does that tell us? About the same amount as the previous posts in this threads.

I think Oleg modelled it right and personnal accounts, account for little in the face of physics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bla bla bla watch the video dude its more than apparent!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 12:09 AM
IMo it looks like lefty can do 2 rolls in the time it takes too do 1 in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

LeChuck59
05-16-2004, 12:32 AM
What the heck happened there Locust? A little click happy are we?

Hoarmurath
05-16-2004, 12:45 AM
I know a lot of people, including myself, that have been quite successful at dogfighting 109s in FB...
Personnally i found the plane to be very, very fast and maneuverable. The only problem i have with the P38J is the elevator stiffness at high speed, over 600 kph. But it seem to be as it was supposed to.

I think you're pointing a the plane while its mainly the pilots that are faulty.

The only thing, about multi engined fighters, that annoy me in this sim, is the multi engine management. It's not easy to control engines power separately. But i just train to select engines as i need to bypass this problem.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

SKIDRO_79FS
05-16-2004, 02:58 AM
In response to the earlier nosewheel steering comment:

"The -38 is a tough airplane to taxi! That nosewheel is free castoring, unlike a 152 or 172; a 310 or a Baron, it doesn't have any connection between the rudder pedals and the nose wheel for steering control on it."
--Ladd Gardner, quoted in an interview on the same site as the video.

Also, "White Lightning" is not even close to a stock P-38L, it has been modified for air racing (look at the engine cowling and then compare it to a normal L model, in fact it almost appears to be an earlier model but it is indeed an F5-E4 - the recon version of the L model.) It also is not carrying any machine guns, cannon, or ammunition, thus there is no comparison that can be made.

I want to see the P-38 as perfect as it possibly can be, but using this aircraft for an example to Oleg would be useless as I am sure he would instantly see it's far from stock, much less a fully armed, combat-ready aircraft.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/SKIDRO-signatureimg.jpg
VICTORY BY VALOR, GENTLEMEN TO THE END

rpkiller
05-16-2004, 03:00 AM
has anyone sent this to oleg yet?

IL2-chuter
05-16-2004, 03:04 AM
That's an L without the turbos/intercoolers (straight pipes over wings/early style chin scoop w/out intercooler) so sounds very different than turboed. No guns/armor plate though it did carry ballast very far forward to maintain cg and still underweight. No nosewheel steering. The nosewheel castors very quickly with only slight side to side movement of the nose.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

Xnomad
05-16-2004, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I have some guncam footage from german 2 109s on a p38j at slower speeds, the 109s cant turn with the p38 becuase of how well its elevator effect is at slow speed. Both made many passes and couldnt get hits and both left due to fuel in the 109s the p38 made it home safely.

Oleg should really take a look at this video of the p38s manuverabilty and stalls. The 38 did not do that well in europe becuase of unexperienced pilots against vetern german pilots. Later in the war it was the other way around.

every US plane in this game is underpar with the exception of the p51 p39 and p63 which have issues that are better then they should be which i will not discuss to ruin the thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 190 needs too be looked at as well it had great elevator effectiveness, almost identical to the mustangs, long thin elevator, great for high and low speed effectiveness. 109z.

Does anyone have proof of the bf110g2 being a tighter turner then a 190

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey LeadSpitter every now and then you mention that you have lots of guncam footage. I remember that you were going to send Wiley some too. I would really like to see some of your stuff has it been posted anywhere yet?

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Xnomad
05-16-2004, 03:28 AM
Oh and as for the video why is it that most aviation films are accompanied by such awful music???? Don't use music no sound is better than that stuff yuck it's sooooo cheap. I'd rather hear the engines then some failed pianist plinking along.

NegativeGee
05-16-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd rather hear the engines then some failed pianist plinking along.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the piece may not have been to your taste, it was both in-time and in-tune.

Its a matter of person preference http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Red_Storm
05-16-2004, 04:40 AM
Lol, you're using this movie to proove your point? It's a lightened P-38, with half the fuel they'd carry in WWII, no guns, no ammo and no bombs. Please. It must be a few tons lighter than it was in r/l.

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

Lav69
05-16-2004, 06:18 AM
I love all these self proclaimed experts on how these planes should or shouldn't fly based merely on what they have or haven't read on the internetor in books. Just play the game!!!

_______________
I'm fixin to.

Locust_
05-16-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeChuck59:
What the heck happened there Locust? A little click happy are we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hmmmmmm

musta been the lightning outside struck twice
in this case about 5 times LOL sorry.

Whats all this bla bla bla yappedy yap yap...

Even Gibbage sayes the roll is wrong not by much but by enough, also the gun platform is out of line there shouldnt be hardley any shaking vibrating from that gun platform.

Bla bla bla we dont want it how it shold be it might kill us!!!

You guys kill me the plane was better in many aspects wich are either unmodelable or not modled, such as dive speed & roll rate the freezing elevators are way overmodled as well not only do they frezze but they go in reverse what the hell !!!??? Im sure they didnt start Forcing the nose down as it does in this GAME at worst ud be locked in level flight, but no if you go 620 or so the plane starts Pulling itself to the ground ???????? NONSENCE !!!!!!!!

I dont give a dam what you say No enginear is going to make an ac that forces itself to go into a nose low attitude above "***" kmh/mph Im looking in the cockpit & im going preaty dam slow when this phenomanon happens Hold on ill go get the exzact speed of the autodiving elevator trick.

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 06:34 AM
Using the speed from inside the cockpit the elevators start to act on there own WILL at about 450mph they start forcing the nose of the ac down what is that all about ? dont tell me thats compression !!!

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Locust_
05-16-2004, 06:38 AM
Hey ,I love all these people who cant read or dont even try with an open mind to find the truth of the matter!!!

Ive been waiting since Il2 came out to fly this bird now its here & its not a total disapointment but it is screwed up in some aspects.

PS I love you too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Locust_ on Sun May 16 2004 at 06:00 AM.]

Locust_
05-16-2004, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
Lol, you're using this movie to proove your point? It's a lightened P-38, with half the fuel they'd carry in WWII, no guns, no ammo and no bombs. Please. It must be a few tons lighter than it was in r/l<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmmm I wonder if you know how much 1 ton is ?

1 ton = 2,240 pounds

I realy doubt that whitelightnin is 4,480 pounds lighter than it was in the war ?

Rember when you couldnt pullout of a dive in the FW series ac & they said it was right ? Then many people complained & then it was changed & now its still right ? How many times can it change & still be right ?

I wish Oleg or whoever would just say "Hey Its not right" but were working on it to make it closer to right, Instead of this BS theory that its alwayes RIGHT no matter how bad or wrong it is!!! Then they will change it for better or worse & Swear that its Right !!! I wasent born yesterday man !!!

Shut up !!!

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

Skalgrim
05-16-2004, 07:44 AM
think, p38j could good fight against a4/a5 or g6, that was main opponent fighter 43

late mw50 109 1800ps make trouble in fb for p38,

but real was they end 44 fly and this time was average germans pilot inferior at experience and inferior at number


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun May 16 2004 at 10:25 AM.]

clint-ruin
05-16-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Locust_:
Rember when you couldnt pullout of a dive in the FW series ac & they said it was right ? Then many people complained & then it was changed & now its still right ? How many times can it change & still be right ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember when players whined about the elevator having bugger all authority in the FW-190?

Remember that when this was changed, players still whined now that you could push it into an accelerated stall by getting sloppy with the elevator controls at all?

I wish players or whoever would just say "hey I have no idea about what the scope of the changes I am asking for will be in the game and maybe Oleg does actually know what he's talking about occasionally", instead of this BS theory where the players are always RIGHT no matter how clueless they are about what getting what they ask for will really do!! They change it for "better" or "worse" and then still whine! I wasn't born yesterday man!

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-16-2004, 08:41 AM
"Even Gibbage sayes the roll is wrong not by much but by enough, also the gun platform is out of line there shouldnt be hardley any shaking vibrating from that gun platform."

I don't notice any shake myself. The roll
rate seems to vary according to some other
underlying bug too. Very odd all the same.

Gibbage1
05-16-2004, 08:51 AM
Your wrong. COG is a big factor in aircraft. If they removed all that weight, it would sevearly hender its stability! I have seen in the nose of the flyable P-38's. They have replica guns in most, with ballist sandbags. So the P-38 you see flying weighs about the same as its WWII counterpart. Maybe less armor, but very close. Plus even if it did have all that weight removed, its all centerline. It would not effect it much. Not like having a lot of weight removed from the wings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
That is a earlier P-38, either a F, G or H. Probably one of the photo recon versions as well. Hence, no cameras, no guns, no ammo in the nose. Thats no .50 cal MG, plus the 20mm, and 2,150 rounds of ammo. Thats a big weight difference, and it shows. They probably didn't load up max fuel either.

So, until you have a F-5 with cameras in the nose, you can't compare them. As far as I'm concerned, the P-38 is a very manuverable plane, moreso for a fighter of it's size.

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

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

tsisqua
05-16-2004, 08:55 AM
Man, am I ever gonna get shot for this!

In FB, empty loadout, 25% fuel, and I can get similar performance. I noticed that in a double roll Lefty was able to roll that plane in about 3 seconds the first time, then a little better than 4 seconds as he entered the second roll, the speed having bled down from the performing the first one. Well, in all honesty, 3 seconds I cannot do at any speed in the game, but at 420kph I can sure roll her in 4. Take into account that this is a simulated P-38, and I'd have to bet that this is probably the closest that the bird has ever been modelled for home pc. This isn't to say that there aren't some things that could be better, but you guys aren't the ones that have to program the code that changes other parameters every time that you enter a new line. RESPECT! PLEASE!

I love this bird, and I want to see it as close as possible to an example of a P-38 (performance on these planes in rl seemed to vary from plane to plane, and everyone neglects this fact). I'd like to see 1C working on getting it better, but you guys had best watch your tone. Anyone remember the FW190?

Thank you so much for the link to the video. I enjoyed this very much, and it is going in my movies folder forever.

Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif Welcome To The Madness http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Gibbage1
05-16-2004, 08:57 AM
Did he say WHY he was relieved to see a P-38? Or are you interpriting that he ment because it was less manuverable?

No. If you look further into the FACTS, you would understand why. #1, the P-38 was easy to ID from a distance. #2, it was easly jumped because it could be ID'd. #3, it took a lot of time for the P-38 pilots to get there aircraft combat ready from a cruse. #4, the Luftwaffa could always disenguage by Split-S or a dive.

Please dont speak for German pilots. Your not qualified enough to read there minds, or interprit there thoughts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
I have a autobiography of a 190D9 pilot stating how relieved he was when he only faced p38's, in his words p38 were easy kills whereas he feared the p47 and p51's.

What does that tell us? About the same amount as the previous posts in this threads.

I think Oleg modelled it right and personnal accounts, account for little in the face of physics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Dem4n
05-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Anyone take into account that White Lightning here has modern engines installed? If anyone knows for sure please do prove me wrong.

Conserving an engine that long is tough work.
On the other hand it did fail afterward so...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.photodump.com/direct/MjrKoenig/lrg1543.jpg

"I don't know what weapons well be fighting with in WWIII, but in WWIV it will be sticks and stones." -Einstein

Gibbage1
05-16-2004, 11:07 AM
What modern engine? I dont think there is a modern equivilant V-12. They still make Allisons. Did you ever take into account that the turbo-supercharger would typically be disabled? They were a nightmare to keep up in WWII, and too much of a hassle to keep up today. Most P-38's flying today have that Ge unit disabled and that will rob them of quite a bit of horsepower.

Also, ever take into consideration that this is a 60 year old aircraft and the pilot is not pushing it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dem4n:
Anyone take into account that White Lightning here has modern engines installed? If anyone knows for sure please do prove me wrong.

Conserving an engine that long is tough work.
On the other hand it did fail afterward so...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.photodump.com/direct/MjrKoenig/lrg1543.jpg

"I don't know what weapons well be fighting with in WWIII, but in WWIV it will be sticks and stones." -Einstein<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Dem4n
05-16-2004, 11:16 AM
Good points there Gibbage http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I was only speculating.

Noone can really say if the planes in the sim are like the ones from rl.
Thats why it's called "simulation" as in trying to simulate... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.photodump.com/direct/MjrKoenig/lrg1543.jpg

"I don't know what weapons well be fighting with in WWIII, but in WWIV it will be sticks and stones." -Einstein

Art-J
05-16-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Locust_:

Im sure they didnt start Forcing the nose down as it does in this GAME at worst ud be locked in level flight, but no if you go 620 or so the plane starts Pulling itself to the ground ???????? NONSENCE !!!!!!!!

I dont give a dam what you say No enginear is going to make an ac that forces itself to go into a nose low attitude above "***" kmh/mph Im looking in the cockpit & im going preaty dam slow when this phenomanon happens Hold on ill go get the exzact speed of the autodiving elevator trick.

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not an aeronautical expert, but I've read that effects of compressibility on Lightning was: 1st - non functional elevator and then after gaining more speed - reverse work of it. So I would be surprised if I didn't see that in a game. I remember it was modelled in the same way in patched "Janes WW2 fighters" Lightning FM, years before FB introduction. Besides, according to this article...
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airsim.html
... compressibility affects both drag and lift of flying object. It doesn't say much, but enough for me to argue with "No enginear is going to [...]" point. Strange and funny things happen with airflow near sonic speed.
Can anyone provide sufficient data on that topic? And I mean DATA, PROOFs, not assumptions only. I myself am not sure how this damn effect worked and I'm very curious about that.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

BS87
05-16-2004, 12:04 PM
Now, while my main bird in FB is the P38, and i'd love to see it get better, this video is about as good for evidence as is the movie Iron Eagle 3.

jenikovtaw
05-16-2004, 02:47 PM
AWESOME!

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

BUG3222
05-16-2004, 03:20 PM
we can't have a p38 on lw statements either
there are statements . that a p38 won a mockup fight with a spitfire .
The p38 is a great stall fighter remember no torq.
this funny spins it does now are porked.

Not that i have problems killing luftwabbles online with it.

Also there are statements that galland was almost killed by a p38

the p38 has always been very underestimated

Regards

BUG322
Twin Engined Devils

1.JaVA_Razer
05-16-2004, 03:26 PM
bit OT but gibbage, you say it takes a while to get a P 38 from cruse to combat. How long(speculate) and what was actually needed?

I'm not saying you r lying(because you aren't) but I am realy interested
PT me or something! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thx in advance

cya folks(and disabling a supercharger? how the hell do you disable a thing INSIDE an engine??)(if it is inside..)

------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

Gibbage1
05-16-2004, 03:29 PM
Good read here for all the P-38 fans.

To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
bit OT but gibbage, you say it takes a while to get a P 38 from cruse to combat. How long(speculate) and what was actually needed?

I'm not saying you r lying(because you aren't) but I am realy interested
PT me or something! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thx in advance

cya folks(and disabling a supercharger? how the hell do you disable a thing INSIDE an engine??)(if it is inside..)

------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

1.JaVA_Razer
05-16-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Art-J:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Locust_:

Im sure they didnt start Forcing the nose down as it does in this GAME at worst ud be locked in level flight, but no if you go 620 or so the plane starts Pulling itself to the ground ???????? NONSENCE !!!!!!!!

I dont give a dam what you say No enginear is going to make an ac that forces itself to go into a nose low attitude above "***" kmh/mph Im looking in the cockpit & im going preaty dam slow when this phenomanon happens Hold on ill go get the exzact speed of the autodiving elevator trick.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Eu,you checked the Bi1 out dude? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif take it up to 5000k then accelerate full and dive. you'll see due to a "flaw" in the design of the airframe the thing goes into a "noseheavy" attitude but given enough room(which you almost never have) you'll be able to bottom loop(loop but then downwards)

so it IS possible. Nowadays we have windtunnels to test this. along with computermodels and alot of other high tech things.
Did you know nowadays before even a prototype is made, 10000 of hours are put into a plane just making a computersimulation.adjusting it every step of the way and then windtunnel tests and THEN,MAYBE if all is good,a prototype will be built.

They didn't do it like that in WW2 ya know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

BUG3222
05-16-2004, 04:10 PM
Those flight engineers just didn't had a clue what compressibility was.

FB lacks the ability to trim out of a dive btw.

SeaFireLIV
05-16-2004, 04:33 PM
Tsisqua said it all best. Chill out people, the P38`s great and no more in error than any other plane in FB, which to all intents and circumstances makes all things pretty accurate. It`s the best we have in any flight sim today! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BUG3222
05-16-2004, 04:53 PM
best in FM today?
how about aces high it better modelled especialy in the upcoming version.

I won't say it's the best
i'm noones cheerleader

Regards
BUG322

Twin Engined Devils

Aztek_Eagle
05-16-2004, 05:03 PM
wonder if this plane has the guns, and full loeaded wiht amo, and unecesary armor for civilian civil servirce... so u shuld ask ur self how much wiegh was remobed from this plane from the original p38s.......

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/AztekEaglesig.JPG

BUG3222
05-16-2004, 05:03 PM
Don't forget the radio equipment still all don't bother its rollrate very much.

plus everything flies 25% feul in online servers

Gibbage1
05-16-2004, 08:48 PM
I see you did not read my post about COG issues with the P-38.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aztek_Eagle:
wonder if this plane has the guns, and full loeaded wiht amo, and unecesary armor for civilian civil servirce... so u shuld ask ur self how much wiegh was remobed from this plane from the original p38s.......

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/AztekEaglesig.JPG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

SKIDRO_79FS
05-16-2004, 10:18 PM
Gibbage you are now my hero for quoting Col. Harold Rau, the CO of the 20th. Fighter Group! Both he and Lt. Col. Wilson (Deptuty C.O.)deserved much more praise than they received.

Rau was the man who helped to spearhead the changing of the 8th. Fighter Command's "escort only" doctrine and on 8 April, 1944 he took the 20th. Ftr. Grp. out on the first single group ground assualt mission in the history of the 8th. Air Force. They were so successful that day the Group received the Presidential Unit Citation. It was also the start of a new chapter in the Group's history that eventually led them to become known as the "Locobusters" because of their prowess against rail transportation. (Wilson alone destroyed 31 locomotives before he was shot down and taken prisoner!)

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/SKIDRO-signatureimg.jpg
VICTORY BY VALOR, GENTLEMEN TO THE END

Korolov
05-17-2004, 12:31 AM
Gibbage, maybe you might have noticed, P-38s came home without ammo oftentimes... Did they just tip over onto their tails despite not having all that ammo in the nose? Of course not. The fact is, they put just enough weight in there to keep the plane from dragging the tail. That bird is streamlined to the max, a pure racer and CANNOT represent the combat variants in used during WWII.

The P-38 isn't some sort of god plane, people. It's the USAAF's Bf-109, and you got to treat it as such. Inconsistencies exsist of course, no doubt, but some of you need to understand that the conditions you face are not the same as those faced historically.

For example, on VFC Coop night, first mission we ran was a CBI one, featuring P-38Js and P-51Bs going after some japanese ground forces. Opposing force was 12 enemy fighters, mixed Franks and Zekes. For the P-38s, we had about 6 of them for ground strike, and me and Icefire for backup ground strike and air cover till the ponies arrived. The Franks came in first, just slightly higher than us - was going for a headon with one but he broke off. We twisted and turned a lot at altitude, but their buddies were coming to help. I put my plane into a light dive and did the best I could to throw off the Frank's aim. It eventually paid off, as he overshot as my speed went down and I regained elevator and aileron authority. I managed to put a few rounds into him, but it was nothing serious. Eventually he dove into the sea - blackout probably.

Icefire was in trouble, and despite the Zekes on my tail, I went to help him. Managed to hit a Frank a few times to cause some damage, but I broke off with the arrival of another P-38.

Since I had a few Zekes on me, I figured one human and one AI. AI one was the first to go down, the second one was the infamous Billfish, and she gave me a run for my money. However I was able to outrun her and zoom away from her; eventually she lost patience and went headon, which as you can imagine, was death for her. A burst of my 20mm impacted onto her cockpit and PKed her. By now I'm all clear, but Icefire is in some trouble. I go out and clear his tail, apparently the Frank on him didn't look around and I cut his aileron controls. It was mostly easy going after that. I caught another Frank by surprise and quickly took care of it, and then Ivan was trying to get more power out of his dead Zeke. I was pretty much out of ammo, but I hit him with what I had. He crashed into a forest, and although I got the credit for the kill, it was actually a 3rd (Icefire shot him some, then a P-51B... Kasadeya I think?)

Moral of the story: It's a better plane than you think.

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

WOLFMondo
05-17-2004, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also, ever take into consideration that this is a 60 year old aircraft and the pilot is not pushing it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When ever you goto an airshow or see a demonstration flight no pilot ever pushes there vintage plane, its to risky. Old airframes which have been used and abused over the years etc can cause metal fatigue and airframes have a limited life if used to there limit. No owner of a vintage plane is going to risk pushing it to its design limits in case of an accident. Its to risky and expensive, engine overhauls are expensive and parts can be hard to come by and these original planes are being lost year after year.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Big_Bad_Wulf
05-17-2004, 01:12 AM
Muahaha,
in the Hyperlobby I can see lots of pilots turn and burn with the P-38. Its no wonder, when they get killed.
When u dive use combat flaps to prevent a crash.
Its so funny, when people start their dive at 2000m and pull up at 200-150m. Most of the guys, who can`t pull out of that dive begin to whine.... hello?!? Do you want an UFO or a real simulated plane.
When you have the divebreak version, it is absolutely no problem to pull up. Only short on/off and your facing the sun.

Why do you compare a racing plane with a warbird? The racer has the same matrix like the old warbirds, but with new technology.. radio etc.
Than saying, that the racer don`t have as much power as the old warbirds may be correct, I think they have more power, than the old warbirds, esp. at low and medium alt, because they are optimized for airracing.
Have no time to google:
Here a P-51 for airracing for example(4500hp):
http://www.yellowairplane.com/Books_n_Videos/P-51_Books.html
Allison-Engine (4000HP read the last break)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710_engine

http://home.pages.at/prokes/Wulfp51.jpg

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 01:15 AM
You said without ammo AND guns. Also pilots came home with less gas to make up for the shift in weight. If you look in a typical pilots manual, it typically says how much weight past the COG your allowed for proper flight. Eliminating both guns and ammo would put the COG way aft. You can eliminate the ammo and guns from aircraft like the P-51 and P-47 since the guns and ammo are located at the COG.

I guarantee you that if you opened up the nose of a restored P-38, you will eather see replica guns, or ballist of some type. The P-38 nose I saw had a few sandbags strapped in, and the pilot used the rest of the space for cargo.

Plus, this weight is located centerline, and would not effect roll rate much, if at all. So even if the White Lightning in the film did have all the weight removed from the nose, it would not effect roll performance any measurable ammount.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Gibbage, maybe you might have noticed, P-38s came home without ammo oftentimes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

JtD
05-17-2004, 02:12 AM
Very nice video.

As opposed to what some of you say, I don't think there is anything in the video a skilled virual P-38 pilot can't reproduce in FB.
Rollrate in particular is as good as in FB.

Big_Bad_Wulf
05-17-2004, 02:24 AM
Gibbage, you can`t compare an airrace plane with a rebuild historic plane.
When you look at the pics of the white lightnin`you can`t see any replica guns.
I bet, that they used a lot of modern technology to modify the P-38 for airracing.
Rebuild the engines with new technology, better hydraulic, optimized airlon, optimized elevator, better and lighter metals.

If you remove the weight of a plane, you only have to look, that you can trim it out.
Without that, it would be difficult to fly a plane, when you start with full fuel tanks and you land with empty fuel tanks. Don`t forget, that a lot of planes have their fuel tanks in the tail of the plane. For example, remove this fuel tank in the tail than you can reduce the weight in the front to compansate. For sure not so easy like I said, but something like that.


Sry for bad english

http://home.pages.at/prokes/Wulfp51.jpg

pourshot
05-17-2004, 02:53 AM
Flying any plane with a excesive rearward COG is close to suicide, if you should try to pull out of a dive in this condition there is a real good chance that you will not be able to stop the pullout ending with a over stressing of the airframe and maybe even a complete failure.No amount of trim can be usefull in this case becuase it's like a pendulum and once it's going it's very hard to stop.

This is also what killed alot of spitfire pilots early on before the problem was addressed with bob wieghts.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

|CoB|_Spectre
05-17-2004, 03:59 AM
One thing is apparent, many people posting here have no understanding of weight-and-balance and how it relates to CG (center of gravity) and the importance thereof. Aircraft design takes into account the distribution of weight, particularly fore and aft of CG. This has dire impact on the handling, stability and control of the airplane, not the least of which is its recoverability from stalls. The distribution of weight along the datum line is of prime importance along the longitudinal axis. If it was designed for, say, guns or cameras and these things were removed, it must be replaced by ballast to compensate. Since these items would be in the nose of the P-38 and along the centerline, there would be negligible effect on roll. Don't feel bad, I've read numerous accident reports in which military pilots have not allowed for changes in CG with non-standard loadouts and got them into "situations".

dadada1
05-17-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Yeep! Already seen it and it clearly shows the P-38s rollrate is undermodeled. But I guess its not enough proof for Oleg and team http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does'nt look that undermodelled to me, if it is then not by much.

dadada1
05-17-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Yeep! Already seen it and it clearly shows the P-38s rollrate is undermodeled. But I guess its not enough proof for Oleg and team http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does'nt look that undermodelled to me, if it is then not by much.

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 04:33 AM
While the COG is of real importance, most of these racing aircraft have almost no original parts in them... They usually get rid of most fuel tanks (they are not racing from iwo jima to tokyo), armament, bulky original radio equipment, etc... and after that, their COG is adjusted... but even then, they are much lighter, and have much more engine power than theirs original counterparts. So you can't compare what a racing warbird can do with what a replica one can do for example. And to imagine that all P38 pilots were doing acrobatics all the time, pushing their plane to the limit, is laughable at best. Most average pilots had already their hands full keeping the damn thing flying while evading ennemy fire.
Just compare how easy it is to get 5 kills in the sim with the number of aces in regard of total P38 pilots in ww2...
Of course, it is human to want to feel like richard Bong at the commands of your lightning, but chances are more that you are only another john Doe... The P38 is not an easy plane, but in the right hands, it is very deadly in FB.

Ah yes, i can't refrain from telling what i heard from so many US plane pilots in the sim while some people were complaining about some german planes :
LEARN TO FLY...

hehehe, i always wanted to say that.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

karost
05-17-2004, 05:14 AM
Hi, I have one thing to ask to p38 pilot here
------------------------------------------------

last night when I join war_clound_44 server , I stay on 109 G-10, after I attack one spit5 and made mistake to my flap jam so I head back to blue base at low, suddenly I was attack then I look back that was p38 he damage my 108 so I have turn back hard to play with him , and I surprise about p38 manuever so good , I have two time to make snap shot deflection with mg 13mm when pass, but made only minor damage to him and at the end I crash from spin ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SO, DID HE USE "AIRBRAKE" TO IMPROVE HIS TURING PERFOMANCE ???

I try p38 some time but impossible to turn tide like that....

thank you,

S!

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 07:20 AM
Airbrakes don't make you turn tighter, but personnally i have no problem staying in the six of a 109G with a P38J only by using combat flaps.

If i need better turning ability, i use differential engine power, reducing power on the engine inside my turn. But it's hard to use, and for the moment, i learn how to handle the plane while doing it... But when it work it allow for almost instantaneous turning... Only problem, it bleed energy alot also.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

worr
05-17-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
Why do you compare a racing plane with a warbird? The racer has the same matrix like the old warbirds, but with new technology.. radio etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is available? We have the video. And it is a great video!

All things considered it is helpful.

I doubt the radios matter when comparing manuverability, etc. All that modern stuff is just that...modern. The old birds were plenty fast. Allison engines were used a great deal for boat racing too.

You see the new GTO from Pontiac? My old GTO still had 65 horsepower on it! And it was half a second faster in the 1/4 mile. I will say it has nicer seats, though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The real issue is fuel quality and cost to run a warbird today. They just aren't pushing thes birds, though they certainly are lighter. Superchargers aren't connected, and governors are installed on the throttle. Most never see past 50" MP and then only at take off when they used to run 60" in combat.

So you can counter this, and others can counter than, in the comparison. Less weight; less available power too. But at the end of the day it is a P-38 and it goes zoom. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

worr
05-17-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Airbrakes don't make you turn tighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any time you can slow an aircraft down to its corner velocity you will tighten the turn. The faster you are the fatter your turn. Then again, the more energy you have the more sustainable your turn too.

Worr, out

worr
05-17-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
And to imagine that all P38 pilots were doing acrobatics all the time, pushing their plane to the limit, is laughable at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You call this video acrobatics? &lt;chuckle&gt;

If you start shooting at me, I'll see real quick what this plane can do. I can talk to the mechanic latter if I survive. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out

worr
05-17-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Flying any plane with a excesive rearward COG is close to suicide, if you should try to pull out of a dive in this condition there is a real good chance that you will not be able to stop the pullout ending with a over stressing of the airframe and maybe even a complete failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not what concerns a pilot when flying a rearward COG aircraft. If anything, it is too easy to get the nose up! The real issue is going into a spin with a rearward COG.

FWIW, most military aircraft today fly with a rearward COG...hence the fly by wire systems.

Worr, out

pourshot
05-17-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Flying any plane with a excesive rearward COG is close to suicide, if you should try to pull out of a dive in this condition there is a real good chance that you will not be able to stop the pullout ending with a over stressing of the airframe and maybe even a complete failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not what concerns a pilot when flying a rearward COG aircraft. If anything, it is too easy to get the nose up! The real issue is going into a spin with a rearward COG.

FWIW, most military aircraft today fly with a rearward COG...hence the fly by wire systems.

Worr, out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Worr maybe you should read my post again, if you pull up is not the nose being raised?

However I should have been more detailed with what I was saying, with a rearward COG like what happened in the spitfire it was hard to stop the plane from tightening up in a turn or when pulling out from a dive, once the nose started to come up it was very hard to stop it and in the case of the spitfire this usualy ended with the pilot blacking out or the wings snaping or both I would suppose.

If you like I could find the quote from Mr Quill were he talks about this.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

[This message was edited by pourshot on Mon May 17 2004 at 07:08 AM.]

perioikos
05-17-2004, 08:05 AM
Someone ought to donate a few dollars along with an email requesting information on how, if in any way, this plane's been modified.

Skarp-Hedin
05-17-2004, 08:24 AM
I fear only 2 planes when I fly my FW-190...that is the p-38 and the LA. I know if you see me I'll have a tough time...

~[AeA]-Skarp
http://www.tmeier.org/aea/index.php

Big_Bad_Wulf
05-17-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
Why do you compare a racing plane with a warbird? The racer has the same matrix like the old warbirds, but with new technology.. radio etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is available? We have the video. And it is a great video!

All things considered it is helpful.

I doubt the radios matter when comparing manuverability, etc. All that modern stuff is just that...modern. The old birds were plenty fast. Allison engines were used a great deal for boat racing too.

You see the new GTO from Pontiac? My old GTO still had 65 horsepower on it! And it was half a second faster in the 1/4 mile. I will say it has nicer seats, though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The real issue is fuel quality and cost to run a warbird today. They just aren't pushing thes birds, though they certainly are lighter. Superchargers aren't connected, and governors are installed on the throttle. Most never see past 50" MP and then only at take off when they used to run 60" in combat.

So you can counter this, and others can counter than, in the comparison. Less weight; less available power too. But at the end of the day it is a P-38 and it goes zoom. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worr, out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lol, ok, its a great Video, but it is no video of a warplane without any modifications.
It is a plane for air racing.
The original Supercharger was for high alt.
The new rebuild and tuned allison engines got a supercharger too, but for low alt/air race alt.
Please read my post after that one, you commented, than you can see, what they changed at the plane and engine.
Just take google and search for planes. Maybe you will not find exactly, what they changed, because its a racing plane with its little secrets and the competitor needn`t to know everything http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The modern fuel for air racing has better additive than in the past, or can be better adjusted to the engines.
Don`t ya think, that those air race planes are better than the original airpane performance?
Than I am wondering, why the modified P-51 make speed records at reno airrace.

But the most important aspect is:
"Its the man, not the machine!"

Turn and burn at low alt with a P-38 and you "die", if the 109 pilot know his business at low alt.
Stay on speed and you life. But please don`t cry, if a K4 catches you at low and medium alt, when you have bombracks and rocketmounting on it.

http://home.pages.at/prokes/Wulfp51.jpg

[This message was edited by Big_Bad_Wulf on Mon May 17 2004 at 07:56 AM.]

worr
05-17-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:

It is a plane for air racing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understood that it was a plane for air racing. And if that's the case...yes they still disable the supercharger, pull back the manifold pressure, and go for the cheaper fuel. You can save a ton of money per hour by making those simple changes, so as to keep these old warbirds flying.

We have here in Fargo the worlds only flying super corsair. I see it in the pattern from time to time, have visited with the people who both maintain it and fly it. This is what they have done too. These birds are for show...not for racing today.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/F2G-1D.jpg

But I fail to see how any of that has any bearing on what one saw in the video and have commented on here. The only impressive results are the rolls, as any perspective on how fast you are going is lost without gauges or some context to know it really is fast.

There isn't much you can do to drastically change an airframe especially with regard to its roll performance characteristics. Less fuel in the wings would help..but not much. Even the historic aileron boost was marginal at lower speeds in terms of improvement. Basically you have a P-38 there flying around in the video...and basically we have a P-38 in IL-2. So the comparisons are natural.

As for the other posters asserting that this video is proof positive that the FM is porked and could justify and protestations thereof... well, I try and keep a signal to noise ratio in mind before responding. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Have fun watching the video!

Worr, out

worr
05-17-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Worr maybe you should read my post again, if you pull up is not the nose being raised?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What part did you want me to reread?

You are right in that a rearward center of gravity is bad. As you approach the center of lift with the center of gravity you'll find spin recovery entirely fatal let alone entry being easier to accomplish. But I fail to see the connection you made (or someone else you are quoting) with dive recovery. I've flown the envelope on weights and balance...mostly too far forward...and what you describe is actually the opposite in my experience.

And yes, pull back trees get bigger; push forward trees get bigger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worr, out

Big_Bad_Wulf
05-17-2004, 10:55 AM
Please compare the rollrate of the white lightnin` video with the rollrate of the P-38 in FB, it nearly makes no difference.

http://home.pages.at/prokes/Wulfp51.jpg

LilHorse
05-17-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
cya folks(and disabling a supercharger? how the hell do you disable a thing INSIDE an engine??)(if it is inside..)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case you're still interested after all these pages...there are two superchargers at work for each Allison in the P-38. One which was integral to the 1710 (more or less, different speed units could be bolted on to it, but it needed this supercharger in some form for operation) and the GE turbosupercharger which was indeed separate from the engine and are connected to the carb intake via ducting. It's pretty much the same unit found in the P-47 and if they are in old restored warbirds at all they are quite often disabled.

Heavy_Weather
05-17-2004, 12:48 PM
thx for the link, great site too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"To fly a combat mission is not a trip under the moon. Every attack, every bombing is a dance with death."
- Serafima Amsova-Taranenko: Noggle, Ann (1994): A Dance with Death.

Korolov
05-17-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You said without ammo AND guns. Also pilots came home with less gas to make up for the shift in weight. If you look in a typical pilots manual, it typically says how much weight past the COG your allowed for proper flight. Eliminating both guns and ammo would put the COG way aft. You can eliminate the ammo and guns from aircraft like the P-51 and P-47 since the guns and ammo are located at the COG.

I guarantee you that if you opened up the nose of a restored P-38, you will eather see replica guns, or ballist of some type. The P-38 nose I saw had a few sandbags strapped in, and the pilot used the rest of the space for cargo.

Plus, this weight is located centerline, and would not effect roll rate much, if at all. So even if the White Lightning in the film did have all the weight removed from the nose, it would not effect roll performance any measurable ammount.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see any guns in "White Lightnin'", do you? In addition, take for example the photo reconnasiance versions of the P-38. They didn't have guns and ammo in the nose of those planes - just cameras. And those cameras were considered MUCH lighter than the weapons and ammo put into the fighter variants. Photo recon P-38s were considered many times faster than the fighter variants. Hence, why I guessed that the P-38 shown in these videos is probably a F-# variant of the P-38. Don't forget that the two engines forward of the main wheels also add weight forward, and probably just enough to keep the front wheel on the ground.

A better example would be a video showing the agility of "Glacier Girl", since it has MG and cannon in the nose, and is otherwise a 99% accurate representation of a full-blown military machine.

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

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 04:59 PM
Didn't read all of the replys... But in summary it seems that some of you have a problem with comparing the white lighting to a WWII configured P38... And rightly so.. WITH REGARDS TO SOME ASPECTS.. BUT NOT ALL.

Granted, the White Lighting does not have guns, or a big bulky WWII radio, or etc... But.. for it to fly right they WOULD HAVE HAD TO add or subtracted some MASS to get the CG back to the GENERAL AREA! If not, the plane would not flys well... if at all.

With that in mind you can think of it as a SEE SAW... For the SEA SAW to remain balanced you will have to have the same weight at both ends... OR move the pivot point (i.e. CG).

With that said.. I assume a WWII configured P38 would be heavier than the White Lighting.. but assuming they added/subtracted mass to/from other areas to maintain the CG.. Well then all you have really done is CHANGE THE MOMENT OF INERTIA..

In short the STATIC things should be similar... assuming you kept that race engine at similar non-race engine settings... Then STATIC things like top speed, climb rate, roll rate, etc.. should be very similar.

BUT

In short the DYNAMIC things should NOT be similar... Due to the different MOMENTS OF INERTIA.. you will have should have different DYNAMIC feel.. jerking the stick around as if in a DF the two should not be very alike.. And the INITIAL ROLL RATE... i.e. that time it takes between STOPPED and MAX ROLL RATE will be different... but once you get to the MAX they should be similar...

BUT it has been years sense I got into the details of this all... Years ago when I had to show Richard Ordway how wrong he was about his TF-51 comparison to a WWII configured P-51.. Because he was talking about the DYNAMIC aspects... Not the STATIC stuff... And if I remember correctly.. the MAX roll rate between these two P38 should be pretty darn close in that the MASS added/subtracted was along the centerline of the roll... Unlike the TF-51 vs. P-51 where the MASS added/subtracted was out on the wings.. which would play into that INITIAL ROLL RATE thing.. but shouldn't mess with the MAX too much.

In summary.. the white lighting and a WWII P-38 should be a good match for ROLL RATE comparisons

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

Korolov
05-17-2004, 05:11 PM
Good points, Tagert. While just about everything else about the planes can't be compared, the roll rate should be comparable.

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

crazyivan1970
05-17-2004, 05:12 PM
It`s a nice video... but all those manuevers could be repeated in AEP i believe.. Take L with 25% fuel and no ammo and try it.. Personally i don`t see anything extraordinary in this video (which is very nice BTW) except rare and beautiful plane.

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
05-17-2004, 05:32 PM
Let me get this correct. Your ASSUMING whats inside by the lack of whats outside? That has got to be one of the most stupid things I have heard yet. Your making a lot of asumptions based on no facts.

#1, WWII camera's were VERY VERY heavy. These things were not your typical Nicon Cool Pix you see today. The recon P-38's flew at 30,000 feet!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you EMAGINE the lense needed to see ANY ground detail at that alt? PLUS they used multiple camera. The film was also huge and bulky. If it was significantly lighter, they would of #1, added weight, or #2 subtracted weight from the tail because of the COG issue that you seem to compleatly ignore.

#2. You think that just because there are no guns sticking out from white lightning that it had no ballast. Thats wrong. I said twice in this thread that I have seen a P-38 without gun mockups and it had sandbag ballist tied down. That PROVES the COG is an issue and you need weight. I even asked the pilot why the sandbags, and he said it was to make up for the lack of guns in the nose!!!

#3, added weight in the nose does not even effect roll rate. We are talking about a 17,000lb aircraft here. Even if they did remove 1000lb of guns and ammo, its still 16,000lb, and the 1000lb was along the centerline. Any effect at all would be fractional at best.

#4, we all agree that the P-38 you see in the film was not being pushed too its limits. The pilot was not getting into FULL DEFLECTION because of the age of the aircraft. In WWII that was not an issue. If someone was firing at you, you rolled that puppy for all its worth. Plus the L had hydrolic assisted ailerons, and the White Lightning did not. So the P-38 in WWII should roll a lot faster then what you see in the film.

#5. The pilot flying the P-38 (Lefty) in the film is rather old. You can see his grey hair quite visibly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Your arm's were also a big factor in roll rate and being able to acheave full deflection. Dont you agree that a young 21 year old can twist that yoke harder then him. Lefty flew bombers in WWII and must have been 50+ when he flew the lightning in that video.

I dont mean to rail on you, but come on. Just admit, the P-38 in WWII should have the same, it not BETTER roll rate then some 50+ year old flying a 50+ year old aircraft!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I don't see any guns in "White Lightnin'", do you? In addition, take for example the photo reconnasiance versions of the P-38. They didn't have guns and ammo in the nose of those planes - just cameras. And those cameras were considered MUCH lighter than the weapons and ammo put into the fighter variants. Photo recon P-38s were considered many times faster than the fighter variants. Hence, why I guessed that the P-38 shown in these videos is probably a F-# variant of the P-38. Don't forget that the two engines forward of the main wheels also add weight forward, and probably just enough to keep the front wheel on the ground.

A better example would be a video showing the agility of "Glacier Girl", since it has MG and cannon in the nose, and is otherwise a 99% accurate representation of a full-blown military machine.

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

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
#5. The pilot flying the P-38 (Lefty) in the film is rather old. You can see his grey hair quite visibly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hey.. Hey... HEY! Back off the Grey Hair Son! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Good points, Tagert. While just about everything else about the planes can't be compared, the roll rate should be comparable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes.. but the hard part will be finding a modern day P38 owner that will allow you to PUSH n PULL that 60+ year old plane around like they did in WWII combat.. let alone like we do in these sims!!

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

crazyivan1970
05-17-2004, 05:44 PM
"Your ASSUMING whats inside by the lack of whats outside? That has got to be one of the most stupid things I have heard yet"

Oh come on Gibb.. you just shot yourself in the foot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif i don`t see any gun barrels, does it mean that someone cut them off? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.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.

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 05:52 PM
He is assuming there is NO weight inside the nose because there is no gun berrals. Like I said many times, if they did not have the guns, they installed sandbags. I saw this with my own eyes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
"Your ASSUMING whats inside by the lack of whats outside? That has got to be one of the most stupid things I have heard yet"

Oh come on Gibb.. you just shot yourself in the foot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif i don`t see any gun barrels, does it mean that someone cut them off? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Korolov
05-17-2004, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Let me get this correct. Your ASSUMING whats inside by the lack of whats outside? That has got to be one of the most stupid things I have heard yet. Your making a lot of asumptions based on no facts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It'd be kind of hard to fit full size M2 into the nose of the plane without having the barrels stick out, wouldn't it? I doubt that they would just introduce some shortened barrel MG into the nose of this plane just for ballast. And FYI, I didn't mean for you to interperet what I said as meaning NO ballast in the nose, but just enough to keep the COG even.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#1, WWII camera's were VERY VERY heavy. These things were not your typical Nicon Cool Pix you see today. The recon P-38's flew at 30,000 feet!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you EMAGINE the lense needed to see ANY ground detail at that alt? PLUS they used multiple camera. The film was also huge and bulky. If it was significantly lighter, they would of #1, added weight, or #2 subtracted weight from the tail because of the COG issue that you seem to compleatly ignore.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say that WWII era cameras were light? No. I said that:

"And those cameras were considered MUCH lighter than the weapons and ammo put into the fighter variants. Photo recon P-38s were considered many times faster than the fighter variants."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#2. You think that just because there are no guns sticking out from white lightning that it had no ballast. Thats wrong. I said twice in this thread that I have seen a P-38 without gun mockups and it had sandbag ballist tied down. That PROVES the COG is an issue and you need weight. I even asked the pilot why the sandbags, and he said it was to make up for the lack of guns in the nose!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently YOU think that because I SAID there were no guns or ammo in the nose, that it means that I THINK there was no weight in the nose. What I MEAN is that there IS NOT AS MUCH WEIGHT IN THE NOSE OF THE PLANE COMPARED TO ACTUAL WWII FIGHTER VARIANTS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#3, added weight in the nose does not even effect roll rate. We are talking about a 17,000lb aircraft here. Even if they did remove 1000lb of guns and ammo, its still 16,000lb, and the 1000lb was along the centerline. Any effect at all would be fractional at best.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I ever said that weight differences in the center affected the roll rate. I assumed we were talking about the pure turning capability of the plane with the elevator.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#4, we all agree that the P-38 you see in the film was not being pushed too its limits. The pilot was not getting into FULL DEFLECTION because of the age of the aircraft. In WWII that was not an issue. If someone was firing at you, you rolled that puppy for all its worth. Plus the L had hydrolic assisted ailerons, and the White Lightning did not. So the P-38 in WWII should roll a lot faster then what you see in the film.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how do YOU know that the plane WASN'T being pushed to it's limits? Especially with rolling. Did you acquire the ability to read minds, see the past and future recently?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#5. The pilot flying the P-38 (Lefty) in the film is rather old. You can see his grey hair quite visibly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Your arm's were also a big factor in roll rate and being able to acheave full deflection. Dont you agree that a young 21 year old can twist that yoke harder then him. Lefty flew bombers in WWII and must have been 50+ when he flew the lightning in that video.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't agree that a younger 21 year old could push and pull that plane harder than the old guy already flying it. You should already know that the P-38L has boosted ailerons, and pure muscle strength is not required to roll the plane like it was in earlier versions.

Old he may be, but that doesn't make him weak. He's probably stronger than many of us on this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I dont mean to rail on you, but come on. Just admit, the P-38 in WWII should have the same, it not BETTER roll rate then some 50+ year old flying a 50+ year old aircraft!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't mean to rail on me? You are making a fool out of yourself here - you are not cool, you are not calm, and your judgement is blinded by your love for this plane. I love the damn plane too, but it is NOT a UFO.

The roll rate shown in the video of that plane is slower than what I get in FB, especially the L at high speed.

No matter how you cut it, the P-38L NEVER had the roll rate of a Extra 300.

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

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 06:33 PM
I mean in terms of weight. Not that they still had the M2 in there. But the weight in sandbags. Do you still deny the COG issues?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
It'd be kind of hard to fit full size M2 into the nose of the plane without having the barrels stick out, wouldn't it? I doubt that they would just introduce some shortened barrel MG into the nose of this plane just for ballast. And FYI, I didn't mean for you to interperet what I said as meaning NO ballast in the nose, but just enough to keep the COG even.
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
Did I say that WWII era cameras were light? No. I said that:

_"And those cameras were considered MUCH lighter than the _weapons and ammo_ put into the fighter variants. Photo recon P-38s were considered many times faster than the fighter variants." _

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats the case, they would have further offset the weight differance with ballist. You also said the F models were faster. I have seen no proof of this what so ever in any of my books. Performance was very very similar if not the same. That in itself suggest's no weight differance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Apparently YOU think that because I _SAID_ there were no guns or ammo in the nose, that it means that I _THINK_ there was no weight in the nose. What I _MEAN_ is that there _IS NOT AS MUCH WEIGHT IN THE NOSE OF THE PLANE COMPARED TO ACTUAL WWII FIGHTER VARIANTS._
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But with the COG issues, THERE MUST be as much weight in the nose as in other varients. Looking at my diagrams of P-38's, there was no weight you could remove in the tail without sacrificing structureal integrity. The Spitfire and P-51 has ballist in the tail you could shift around, the P-38 does not. The easiest way is just to add weight to the nose instead of making structural modifications.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't think I ever said that weight differences in the center affected the roll rate. I assumed we were talking about the pure turning capability of the plane with the elevator.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This thread is almost compleatly compairing the roll rate to the video to the roll rate of the P-38 in-game. The video does not show any turn radious other then graceful turns, and not combat turns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So how do _YOU_ know that the plane _WASN'T_ being pushed to it's limits? Especially with rolling. Did you acquire the ability to read minds, see the past and future recently?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

#1, Common sense. #2, reading the interview of Lefty's son, Ladd, he said "We did not have the money to keep the P-38 in top condition, so we did not push it". There you go.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, I don't agree that a younger 21 year old could push and pull that plane harder than the old guy already flying it. You should already know that the P-38L has boosted ailerons, and pure muscle strength is not required to roll the plane like it was in earlier versions.

Old he may be, but that doesn't make him weak. He's probably stronger than many of us on this forum.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that he may be stronger then many of us, but he is still not 21. I dont see many 50 year old body builders or professional wreslers. Do you?

P.S. The P-38 in the film is NOT and L and DOES NOT have the boosted ailerons. So Lefty had to deflect the flaps with his muscles alone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't mean to rail on me? You are making a fool out of yourself here - you are not cool, you are not calm, and your judgement is blinded by your love for this plane. I love the damn plane too, but it is NOT a UFO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol. This is just funny. Your just getting irate now. When have I ever requested the P-38 be a UFO? Did you ever read any of my Aces bug reports? Do you know that the P-38 had a roll rate of about 2 seconds in Aces beta and I wrote it up and provided 3 roll rate charts compairing differant aircraft? Did you know that in the beta, the P-38 did not suffer from compressability at all? I baggered Oleg for a week to get the P-38's compression modeled! If I wanted the P-38 to be some uber UFO, I would not have submitted those bugs, would I? Dont assume ANYTHING about me, just like you assume so many other things.

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

No matter how you cut it, the P-38L NEVER had the roll rate of a Extra 300.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show me were I requested this feature? I have 3 roll rate charts, and the P-38 in game is difinitly not close. The P-38 J rolls better then the P-38L in the game up too 400KPH, and the L should ALWAYS roll better then the J. I have been in constant contact with Oleg and his team to fix these issues and others, and I think you will be quite pleased in the patch. I know I am http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Please keep this as a debate and dont take it personal. Im correcting some errors in your judgements and assumptions, as you did with me.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 06:59 PM
For Tagert...

Very interesting, you seem to know a lot of technical speach, very impressing... Well, could we have the chance of having a look at your flight engineering diploma? Must be impressive.

For Gibbage...

http://www.sbrcmodels.com/store/agora.cgi?cart_id=3100464.2492*Ip6o82&p_id=1000&xm=on&ppinc=twinkits&currency=

Oh my god!!!! This P38 is lighter and smaller than the original, and it flies!!! how can be? All your statement is ridiculous, the plane can be well balanced while being lighter. And with more powerful engines.

For Worr...

Ahem, if you would have taken a look a the "White lightning" website, you would know that it is fitted with too superchargers (malfunction of one of them was the reason it crashed) and that it use 100 octane fuel.

Although it is possible there are errors in P38 FM, they are certainly not so great as to make the plane unfit for aerial combat. Many people are very satisfied with it, and very successful. If you have real ww2 datas about the P38 (i wonder why Chimp haven't yet jumped in), then send them to Oleg... If you lack these datas, you can ask for them. But using "White lightning" as your model of what the FB P38 should be is ridiculous at best.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 07:07 PM
Lol. Keep flying arcade mode and leave the complicated stuff too us grownups kid. OK? Learn something called scale and come back in a few years.

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

For Gibbage...

http://www.sbrcmodels.com/store/agora.cgi?cart_id=3100464.2492*Ip6o82&p_id=1000&xm=on&ppinc=twinkits&currency=

Oh my god!!!! This P38 is lighter and smaller than the original, and it flies!!! how can be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 07:18 PM
Tss tss gibbage... You're better than me at 3d modelling, no doubt... For FR flying, i think i have much more experience than you seem to believe...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 07:41 PM
Your the one compairing a 16000lb aircraft with 3000HP to a 33 ounce foam RC with 2 electric motors powered by batteries. Again, learn scale. Smaller things perform a LOT differantly then bigger things. That should point you in the right direction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Tss tss gibbage... You're better than me at 3d modelling, no doubt... For FR flying, i think i have much more experience than you seem to believe...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 07:56 PM
No gibbage, the right direction is : you can redesign a plane to be lighter while maintaining its balance. You seem to have problems accepting it.

As warbirds are not usually heavily modified, the use of sandbags to make for the lack of some equipment in them is ok. It allow the plane to retain its flying characteristics.

But for racing planes, it is much different. Most are heavily redesigned, with boosted engines, and lighter frame.

Show me a video of what a warbird P38 can do that i can't in FB if you wish, but the "White lightning" video prove nothing. And to be honest, most videos prove nothing. What you need to prove FB P38 FM is wrong is hard data, tests reports, preferably from different sources.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
For Tagert...

Very interesting, you seem to know a lot of technical speach, very impressing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Well, could we have the chance of having a look at your flight engineering diploma? Must be impressive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who claimed to have a flight engineering diploma... Mine is actually in Electrical Engineering and I work for an Aerospace company... But that doesn't really mater in that the *things* I talked about require neither... All they do require is a little math a physics... In light of you not GETTING IT... Is it safe to assume that you have NO Engineering degree of any kind? ROTFL!

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

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
No gibbage, the right direction is : you can redesign a plane to be lighter while maintaining its balance. You seem to have problems accepting it.

As warbirds are not usually heavily modified, the use of sandbags to make for the lack of some equipment in them is ok. It allow the plane to retain its flying characteristics.

But for racing planes, it is much different. Most are heavily redesigned, with boosted engines, and lighter frame.

Show me a video of what a warbird P38 can do that i can't in FB if you wish, but the "White lightning" video prove nothing. And to be honest, most videos prove nothing. What you need to prove FB P38 FM is wrong is hard data, tests reports, preferably from different sources.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. we are in the SHOW ME MODE Huh? Ok, SHOW ME something that shows the White Lighting Racing Plane FRAME was... How did you say it? "HEAVILY REDESIGNED" to make it lighter. Because from the exterior it is not apparent... like some racers... As a mater of fact except for the gun port holes it looks alot like an orginal P38 frame/body... But you seem to KNOW IT ALL.. So, take your CRYSTAL BALL and place it on your SCANNER and upload us a picture proveing it was "HEAVILY REDESIGNED"

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

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 08:08 PM
White lighting is not a re-design. To redesign a full size warbird to redistribute weight is compleatly insane when you can just add a freaking sandbag to the knose! Do you HONESTLY THINK THEY WOULD REDESIGN A WARBIRD over adding ballist? Maybe for a reno unlimited with with a massive budget, but this is NOT a reno unlimited aircraft, and the family that owned it did NOT have a budget to pay engineers to redesign and re-distribute weight.

Again, you are working off of asumptions, I am working off of facts. Its easier to add ballist then redesign an aircraft, and thats a fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
No gibbage, the right direction is : you can redesign a plane to be lighter while maintaining its balance. You seem to have problems accepting it.

As warbirds are not usually heavily modified, the use of sandbags to make for the lack of some equipment in them is ok. It allow the plane to retain its flying characteristics.

But for racing planes, it is much different. Most are heavily redesigned, with boosted engines, and lighter frame.

Show me a video of what a warbird P38 can do that i can't in FB if you wish, but the "White lightning" video prove nothing. And to be honest, most videos prove nothing. What you need to prove FB P38 FM is wrong is hard data, tests reports, preferably from different sources.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
05-17-2004, 08:12 PM
It is also a fact that you have only a video and no real data... So all you have is... BS...

What you are doing here is whining, not arguing, as you have nothing to argue with....

Well, this was my last post in this thread, unless someone can bring in real data.

Good whining ,M8s...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Korolov
05-17-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I mean in terms of weight. Not that they still had the M2 in there. But the weight in sandbags. Do you still deny the COG issues?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bet I do. This plane is obviously a couple hundred KG lighter than what would be considered a combat ready unit - you don't have to give it the full blown weapon installation to get the proper COG, do you? And even then, who said you had to put it all in the nose?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If thats the case, they would have further offset the weight differance with ballist. You also said the F models were faster. I have seen no proof of this what so ever in any of my books. Performance was very very similar if not the same. That in itself suggest's no weight differance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's where your thinking is flawed. Perhaps the F-5's were putting enough ballast to keep the nose on the ground.

Also, just to clarify, I don't mean the P-38Fs, but rather the subvariants of F-4's and F-5s, which mounted cameras.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But with the COG issues, THERE MUST be as much weight in the nose as in other varients. Looking at my diagrams of P-38's, there was no weight you could remove in the tail without sacrificing structureal integrity. The Spitfire and P-51 has ballist in the tail you could shift around, the P-38 does not. The easiest way is just to add weight to the nose instead of making structural modifications.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question should be, how much weight is required to keep the nosewheel on the ground and the COG marginally balanced?

Now I know you can't use pure pilot accounts to describe a plane's performance, but I recall a while back a member of this forum had a interview with a F-5 pilot who flew strict recon missions. He was asked if he felt naked without any MG for defense. He said that "Nothing could catch us, we were much lighter than the P-38s with guns."

I've read other accounts from photo recon pilots who's stories concede to the same thing. Therefore, I must assume that the F-5 photo recon variants were significantly faster than the armed variants.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This thread is almost compleatly compairing the roll rate to the video to the roll rate of the P-38 in-game. The video does not show any turn radious other then graceful turns, and not combat turns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then we haven't got much to argue about. The P-38s I fly in FB seem to roll faster than the P-38 shown in those videos.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
#1, Common sense. #2, reading the interview of Lefty's son, Ladd, he said "We did not have the money to keep the P-38 in top condition, so we did not push it". There you go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And rolling a plane is really that hard on it, much less a plane with a slow roll rate?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree that he may be stronger then many of us, but he is still not 21. I dont see many 50 year old body builders or professional wreslers. Do you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most have retired at that age - so no, I don't see many of them. As far as I'm concerned, being 21 just makes you more arrogant. Point being, this guy knows this plane better than any of us - he flew it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
P.S. The P-38 in the film is NOT and L and DOES NOT have the boosted ailerons. So Lefty had to deflect the flaps with his muscles alone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the website:


Accident occurred Monday, June 25, 2001 at Greenwood, MS
Aircraft:Lockheed P-38L-5LD, registration: N25Y
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Lol. This is just funny.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad I could tickle your funny bone. It helps to laugh occasionally. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is just funny. Your just getting irate now. When have I ever requested the P-38 be a UFO? Did you ever read any of my Aces bug reports? Do you know that the P-38 had a roll rate of about 2 seconds in Aces beta and I wrote it up and provided 3 roll rate charts compairing differant aircraft? Did you know that in the beta, the P-38 did not suffer from compressability at all? I baggered Oleg for a week to get the P-38's compression modeled! If I wanted the P-38 to be some uber UFO, I would not have submitted those bugs, would I? Dont assume ANYTHING about me, just like you assume so many other things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a thought: maybe Oleg already knew about the compression bug. Perhaps the team hadn't got to it yet. Maybe the implementation of the P-38 wasn't completed, so roll rate was comparable to a simplified AI FM.

So how do you really know that you helped?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Please show me were I requested this feature? I have 3 roll rate charts, and the P-38 in game is difinitly not close. The P-38 J rolls better then the P-38L in the game up too 400KPH, and the L should ALWAYS roll better then the J. I have been in constant contact with Oleg and his team to fix these issues and others, and I think you will be quite pleased in the patch. I know I am http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to you and many others, the P-38 rolls too slow, even when compared to the faster rolling P-38 we have now. It does sound like you want a plane capable of rolling as fast as a Fw-190 - and your charts should show this as not being true. However, there again I go assuming things... Silly me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Please keep this as a debate and dont take it personal. Im correcting some errors in your judgements and assumptions, as you did with me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do take it personal, and for the same reason as you - I LOVE the P-38. However I will try to treat it as a debate from now on.

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

TAGERT.
05-17-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
It is also a fact that you have only a video and no real data... So all you have is... BS...

What you are doing here is whining, not arguing, as you have nothing to argue with....

Well, this was my last post in this thread, unless someone can bring in real data.

Good whining ,M8s...

[URL=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Typical! Is this the part where we talk about how the 109Z is valid?

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

worr
05-17-2004, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
For Worr...

Ahem, if you would have taken a look a the "White lightning" website, you would know that it is fitted with too superchargers (malfunction of one of them was the reason it crashed) and that it use 100 octane fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WWII bird flew on higher octane...and like I said all modern warbirds just aren't being flown in the same way, or at the same cost level as the originals were. It is just too expensive both in fuel and maintenance, as well as risk of investment.

With 145 octane you could pull 60" MP. I've only talked with a couple modern warbird pilots but they aren't pulling that. One reported he wont go over 48" except on take off.

But since you read the web site...what does this say about the roll rate anyhow?

Worr, out

Korolov
05-17-2004, 09:03 PM
worr - did they give you any info on the RPMs they ran at? That'd be interesting to know.

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

LeadSpitter_
05-17-2004, 10:07 PM
bf110 with 75 fuel almost reaching the end of the runway with manual before the p38 with 25% fuel reaches halfway down the runway, airrace lineup and comms start.

the 109 109z and bf110 have ridiculous accelaration off the ground with over revs it doesnt damage the engine either but will just make you over heat which you can get rid of very quickly. then the 120 mix aircraft plus stage one are super accelarting too, check the p40e field mod which uses the engine of the lagg3 and has 120mix vs the p40e or m, 120 counts as 10% extra trottle so does super charger 1.

the p38s roll, divespeed,accelaration, and elevator effectiveness are wrong, center lined 450lbs of guns and ammo in the nose wouldnt effect a roll rate that much.

the dive accelaration is truely porked in this game, same thing with the p47 roll and dive speed etc. Watch the video the left engine backfires on takeoff koro http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif dont forget most people use 25 fuel too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The mustang has way to much elevator effect same with many other aircraft in the game compaired to the fw190 which seems to have the worst elevator effectiveness in the game (basically same design as the 262 and p51 long narrow thin elevator.

im sorry but no plane in the game move like the real thing with the exception of the b239 p40 and p47 in version 1.0 which were the only aircraft to have real pilots test them, since then they been arcadified like the b239 and p40 to match up with the other arcaded aircraft like the i153 i16 laggs migs g2 etc.

Since the loss of all 120-100 mix on the us planes they lost alot of thier low alt accelaration, the 190 has too, take a look at robbans tests


http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Mon May 17 2004 at 09:23 PM.]

Korolov
05-17-2004, 10:13 PM
I think we can concede, Leadspitter, that your way of getting a point across, is abysmal at best.

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

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 10:15 PM
Honestly, im suprised. I always thought you know P-38's. I am totally wrong. The accedent report is in error. The White Lightning is a P-38 E or F model. Take a look at the engine.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/p38e.jpg

http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww2/kepek/planes/pics/p-38_6.jpg

This is a P-38L.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/P-38_3.jpg



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

From the website:

_
Accident occurred Monday, June 25, 2001 at Greenwood, MS
Aircraft:Lockheed P-38_L-5LD_, registration: N25Y
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
_


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Korolov
05-17-2004, 10:20 PM
Ah, but look at the tailboom intakes, and the carb repositioning - the carb is placed on top of the engines, while the tailboom intakes are the rounded style found on P-38J&L.

P-38E-H:

http://p-38online.com/p36s6.jpg

Hence, if they've repositioned the carb, then perhaps they may have exchanged the J&L intakes for a earlier intake body, for improved speed.

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

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 10:23 PM
Here is some roll data for you people to chew on. Feel free to compair these charts to that of the P-38 in-game, and the one in the video. I doubt the video is even close to "peak" roll because the family did not have insurance on the P-38 and they would not risk it.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/RollChartClr2.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/roll1.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/roll3.jpg

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 10:26 PM
Interesting. I noticed the radiators just after I posted. This P-38 may be a mutt. I dont know why they would put the old chin on an L since it would kill the engines performance quite a bit! The reason for the larger chins was for the core type intercoolers. The older E-H P-38's could NOT use the full HP of its engines because of the poor leading edge intercoolers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Ah, but look at the tailboom intakes, and the carb repositioning - the carb is placed on top of the engines, while the tailboom intakes are the rounded style found on P-38J&L.

P-38E-H:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 10:40 PM
Also, the canopy is of a J or L. Im guessign they used the E-H cowel for racing streamligning, but that would kill there Intercooler and kill a lot of there HP? If they went to this extent for speed, then they would have removed the hydrolic ailerons since they added a few hundred pounds alone.

I thought White lightnin was a stock P-38 E or F, but now I dought it. Who knows what modifications they did to it! But the charts are true, and Oleg has accepted them.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

LeadSpitter_
05-17-2004, 10:43 PM
who ever said the white lightning wasnt a e-h? The backfirething korolov said just happened to the j-l on page 4 is all I stated if you reread it.

And you say my way of things is bad korolov you and gibbage take the bf110 with 75 fuel or 109z next to the p38j or l with 25 fuel and do a accelaration race and look at the accelaration differences. take a track to show everyone

As for the roll the p38 it can never come close to the 190s or p51 roll rate at top speed, neither does the jug. Make a track take a picture prove it to me that im wrong.

Prove anything I said is wrong in my post I'd like to see you do a four leaf clover manuever in the FB p38 btw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Mon May 17 2004 at 09:55 PM.]

worr
05-17-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

Also, just to clarify, I don't mean the P-38Fs, but rather the subvariants of F-4's and F-5s, which mounted cameras.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-4 and early F-5s were P-38Fs and Gs converted over. Hence you'll notice the lack of a lower chin on the engine profiles on this particular lightening. Not sure why this one would have aileron boost on it, since it is an early P-38 that didn't have those fitted.

[edit] nevermind...someone else already pointed this out.

worr - did they give you any info on the RPMs they ran at? That'd be interesting to know.

Yes, as a matter of fact he did. But I didn't write it down at the time. The MP stuck with me because it was unique. The RPM wasn't. Probably 3,000 rpm as usual for take off. When I flew the T-34 I remembered the same cautions to stay below a certain MP even though the plane could certainly fly there if need be.

"We need to pay the bills," was how it was explained. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But once again, this wouldn't effect anything you see in this video. Extra or diminished HP isn't going to change a roll rate.

Worr, out

Korolov
05-17-2004, 11:37 PM
"White Lightnin'" is so heavily modified, it's hard to say whether its a P-38L, a F-5 or a P-38F! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Leadspitter - regarding roll rates, diving and rolling with the P-38 is one of my favorite evasion techniques with the P-38, especially vs. the 109. As speed goes faster, the P-38 rolls better and the 109 rolls worser. It's worked a lot for me, as long as the 109 is far out enough that it can't use the Mk108. Fw-190s are much easier opponents because it's easy to outturn them. Although a good 190 pilot will give you a run for your money.

SO, here's a track me and Ivan made:

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/p38vsk4track.zip

Two tracks in there, the one I recorded is the "quick0003.ntrk", which only shows a diving roll, while Ivan's shows the whole combat from that point on. If he had any ammo, I would have caught a few 30mm up the tailboom, but fortunately he didn't.

Settings were 25% fuel and no ammo for either of us (didn't want to get trigger happy, y'know... .50 cal is a rather common disease for the DB engines. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

First time we went at it in a similar fashion, Ivan took 100% fuel in his K-4... P-38 had no trouble manuvering with him at all. He crashed into the ground eventually from making a error. Next time we went round and round with right fuel, was a more violent duel - I crashed into the ground that time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

If you have any patterns showing what a clover leaf looks like from the top and sides, I'd be happy to give it a try.

Your first paragraph has me confused, Lead - if you mean that early P-38s that used the same intake system, what I said was that the P-38s before the J model had a problem with explosive backfires due to the nature of that cooling system.

Worr - the damage report by the FAA states that this paticular P-38 is a P-38L-5LD. It's unlikely that they would get the model type wrong, which is compounded by the fact that there were more P-38Ls produced than any other type. Hence, more availible for postwar surplus buying, which is probably where this P-38 came from. The fact that the plane has P-38J&L style tailboom intakes, coupled with carburetors being mounted on top of the nacelles rather than on the side, leads me to believe that they also modified the cooling system to the old style as well. A less important difference seems to be the yoke is the J&L style yoke rather than the earlier "wheel" style yoke.

It is very likely that they modified the intercooler and oil intakes for additional speed, since I believe I heard that the earlier style was faster than the later J&L style.

I'm going to compare those charts to the results I get from rolling the P-38. After flying the P-47 for so long in FB, the P-38's roll rate is a godsend - so I am somewhat misguided about the subject.

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

wayno7777
05-17-2004, 11:37 PM
I wish I could find the article on Lefty's P-38. Yes it is a mutt. "This P-38 was found in high grass behind an old hanger building outside Yukon, OK Another CAF P-38, a photo version was traded outright for this one complete with a machine gun nose." from a Ghost Squadron program. Also Flight Journal magazine issue Summer 2003 lists it as a P-38L; 44-53254. The article I read said the cowlings and various other details were changed to find more speed. BTW a great book to read on the P-38 is Martin Caidin's Forked-tailed Devil: The P-38. I bought it in 1976 for a $1.95, paperback. CH.24. Final Critique pretty much sums up loads of anwsers for this thread except for the FB's. It seems that the bickering about the plane will never change...FJ lists 7 flying, 4 being rebuilt including White Lightning, and 10 in museums.

World War Two Weekend June 4-6, 2004 Reading, PA
Over 70 planes including a P-38 (hopin' for GG)
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

Gibbage1
05-18-2004, 12:17 AM
The fastest P-38 model was the J. The early models could NOT use the full power of the engines without overheating because of the lousy intercooler. The J introduced the "core" type intercooler in the chin and that allowed the pilots too unleash the true power of the Allisons. The L added a LOT of weight and drag due to the dive recovery flaps and Powered Ailerons, and reduced the speed by quite a bit. The top speed was 425-430 mph at 30,000 ft., and 406 mph at 20,000 ft. The L had a maximum speed at 25,000 ft. of 414 mph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
It is very likely that they modified the intercooler and oil intakes for additional speed, since I believe I heard that the earlier style was faster than the later J&L style.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

LeadSpitter_
05-18-2004, 12:38 AM
thx korolov I looked at the track,

I know the p38s can slightly outroll the 109s at high speed in FB as for the turning the 109 is not using flaps or the 0 trottle 0 pitch combatflaps bind then overev in manual manuver, what I was saying was it cannot outroll the 190s as the chart says the rollrate should be better then the 190A over 350mph/560kmph

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:52 PM.]

JtD
05-18-2004, 01:51 AM
In my copy of FB AEP I can get the P-38-L to roll 360? within 3.5 seconds. (5 rolls within 17.5s.) At 510kph TAS, 1000meters alt. That is a bit more than 100?/sec.

Looking at the charts Gibbage provided the roll rate seems okay to me, overmodelled if anything as I can't see 100? anywhere on these charts.

Giganoni
05-18-2004, 02:24 AM
Boy, all this arguing over the P-38, maybe Oleg should take this piece of candy away from his kids and then they'd have something to complain about. I think the P-38 is fine.. with ACE Ai its easy to beat in a A6m5, but I'm sure a good online pilot would make me learn pain. At least we got the P-38, and when we get mid war Italian planes to fly I won't complain, I'll be too busy flying them and setting up missions on the desert map.

WTE_Ibis
05-18-2004, 02:39 AM
It should fly inverted backwards uphill
with engines stopped,especially the left
engine which isn't really needed over 1000m
when the canopy is opened because you can
get abetter view if you are over 6ft.tall
when looking backwards past the overhead
dripfeed afterburners that use less dieseline
than the BF109 which actually sucks!!
Just the opinion of an expert on this particular subject,S!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-schmile.JPG
www.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MOSSIE.jpg

dadada1
05-18-2004, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kneebonejockey:
It should fly inverted backwards uphill
with engines stopped,especially the left
engine which isn't really needed over 1000m
when the canopy is opened because you can
get abetter view if you are over 6ft.tall
when looking backwards past the overhead
dripfeed afterburners that use less dieseline
than the BF109 which actually sucks!!
Just the opinion of an expert on this particular subject,S!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-schmile.JPG
www.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MOSSIE.jpg (http://www.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MOSSIE.jpg) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At last, someone who makes more than a little sense on these boards.

p1ngu666
05-18-2004, 09:18 AM
photo recon normaly didnt have guns, but they where the cream of the bunch. your only defensive was speed really, u had no guns and u probably had the sweetest engines going, plus some unoffical extra boost i imagine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
the camera's would be heavy i imagine, no idea compaired to guns and ammo tho ;P

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

worr
05-18-2004, 09:42 AM
&gt;photo recon normaly didnt have guns, but they where the cream of the bunch. your only defensive was speed really, u had no guns and u probably had the sweetest engines going, plus some unoffical extra boost i imagine

Actualy, no you didn't.

Like I said the F-4 and F-5s were taken from the older generation of P-38s along with the older engines. I have the production numbers too if you like. Steath was the real advantage of photo recon....since a group of planes is easier to spot. The photo recon versions were only marginally lighter. You still had the same armour plating.

Worr, out

p1ngu666
05-18-2004, 09:48 AM
maybe it was the british who did it that way :P
as for stealth, germans had radar, what u say is true but if contact is made u just gotta leg it
same as the mossie, which the americans used aswell for weather reports http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Korolov
05-18-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The fastest P-38 model was the J. The early models could NOT use the full power of the engines without overheating because of the lousy intercooler. The J introduced the "core" type intercooler in the chin and that allowed the pilots too unleash the true power of the Allisons. The L added a LOT of weight and drag due to the dive recovery flaps and Powered Ailerons, and reduced the speed by quite a bit. The top speed was 425-430 mph at 30,000 ft., and 406 mph at 20,000 ft. The L had a maximum speed at 25,000 ft. of 414 mph
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said models before the J were faster. I meant that the intercooler & oil cooler intake design were *considered* faster than the later "block" style on the J&L. Hence why they used them on this paticular P-38 - improved speed due to better aerodynamics.

I imagine you already know by now that the later intake style on the J&L created drag, but the increases in horsepower made up for it.

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

Gibbage1
05-18-2004, 12:41 PM
Try "Aerodynamic". It may clear a few things up. But like I said, the intercooler was not enough in 1942-43. How do they get around that problem with a souped-up engine flying around the desert?

<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 fastest P-38 model was the J. The early models could NOT use the full power of the engines without overheating because of the lousy intercooler. The J introduced the "core" type intercooler in the chin and that allowed the pilots too unleash the true power of the Allisons. The L added a LOT of weight and drag due to the dive recovery flaps and Powered Ailerons, and reduced the speed by quite a bit. The top speed was 425-430 mph at 30,000 ft., and 406 mph at 20,000 ft. The L had a maximum speed at 25,000 ft. of 414 mph
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said models before the J were faster. I meant that the intercooler & oil cooler intake design were *considered* faster than the later "block" style on the J&L. Hence why they used them on this paticular P-38 - improved speed due to better aerodynamics.

I imagine you already know by now that the later intake style on the J&L created drag, but the increases in horsepower made up for it.

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

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

worr
05-18-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I never said models before the J were faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov your words were: "I heard that the earlier style was faster than the later J&L style."

I think the above could cause confusion. Then again, white lightening is confusing itself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, the L was faster...though I conceed that most books state the J was. It was faster because better fuel was available to it as well as more dependable engines that could be pushed beyond the limits.

Worr, out

Korolov
05-18-2004, 01:12 PM
It's hard to understand how they could have kept the engine cool enough with that cooling method. Maybe it wasn't quite a exact copy of the earlier method, or it had some special improvements. Perhaps it was only a issue of personal preference or appearance.

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

Big_Bad_Wulf
05-18-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Try "Aerodynamic". It may clear a few things up. But like I said, the intercooler was not enough in 1942-43. How do they get around that problem with a souped-up engine flying around the desert?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe they use better radiators? Modern radiators with finer grids, because the modern industry can produce it better than in the past and don`t think, that they use original coolers. I think ya know, how long a car radiator can be used(on average).
Had the engines armorplates? Maybe if they had, they removed them that effect a better airflow or used the place with bigger radiators.
Another possibility is that no P-38L intakes were available, but I think spares are very rare.

http://home.pages.at/prokes/Wulfp51.jpg

Art-J
05-18-2004, 05:25 PM
As far as I remember, after reading great Perch's articles referring charging units construction (posted somewhere over these forums long time ago) intercooler cools down the air between first, mechanical driven stage (supercharger) and second, exhaust driven stage (turbocharger), or aditional second mechanical stage in two speed superchargers. White Lightning has GE turbos removed, Allison engines on this plane have only one speed mechanical supercharger, thus, compressed air from first stage goes straight to intake manifolds. So it really doesn't need as effective intercooler intakes as wartime planes did. (Does it have intercooler at all? "Inter-" what? There's only one stage!) So they could use earlier type, more slim cowlings for better speed. This is my theory, amen. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

Gibbage1
05-18-2004, 05:32 PM
That is possible since most GE units are disabled on todays P-38's due to the fact they are a pain in the *** to maintain. That would remove the need for the intercooler since the type of supercharger used does not need one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Art-J:
As far as I remember, after reading great Perch's articles referring charging units construction (posted somewhere over these forums long time ago) intercooler cools down the air between first, mechanical driven stage (supercharger) and second, exhaust driven stage (turbocharger), or aditional second mechanical stage in two speed superchargers. White Lightning has GE turbos removed, Allison engines on this plane have only one speed mechanical supercharger, thus, compressed air from first stage goes straight to intake manifolds. So it really doesn't need as effective intercooler intakes as wartime planes did. (Does it have intercooler at all? "Inter-" what? There's only one stage!) So they could use earlier type, more slim cowlings for better speed. This is my theory, amen. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Snow_Wolf_
05-18-2004, 06:22 PM
i thought that if you take the guns our or amour out you would be allow to have an AME or A&P do a weright and balance to determine the new C of G of the aircraft. Is this the same as changing a normal starter on a 150 to a Light weight starter in that same 150 which a weight and balance ammdement must be done. Now i don't know if it the same with this P-38 which we see here. But if they did took all that stuff out they could have gotten a new C of G determined by FAA or TC lience AME or A&P with the right ratings.

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master the art of Speed without ever getting a Ticket"

wayno7777
05-18-2004, 09:20 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Art-J:
intercooler cools down the air between first, mechanical driven stage (supercharger) and second, exhaust driven stage (turbocharger), or aditional second mechanical stage in two speed superchargers. White Lightning has GE turbos removed, Allison engines on this plane have only one speed mechanical supercharger, thus, compressed air from first stage goes straight to intake manifolds. So it really doesn't need as effective intercooler intakes as wartime planes did. (Does it have intercooler at all? "Inter-" what? There's only one stage!) So they could use earlier type, more slim cowlings for better speed. This is my theory, amen. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think he's right about the intercoolers, they cool the air from the turbo( exhaust)before it goes to the super. If you remove the turbos, you don't need the intercoolers, thus you replace the chin cowlings from the J or L models with those from the E or F models. There's more to it than that of course, but that's the gist of the matter.

BTW: Here are some specs from Aero Series Vol.19 :
'E' V-1710-27-29 390 MPH@35000 FT.
'F' V-1710-48-53 390 MPH@25000 FT. HP. 1225
'G'(F-5A) V-1710-51-55 400 MPH@25000 FT. HP. 1325
'H' V1710-89-91 410 MPH@25000 FT. HP. 1425
'J' V1710-89-91 430 MPH@30000 FT. HP. 1425
'L'(F-5G) V1710-111-113 415 MPH@ 25000 FT. HP. 1475
'M' V1710-111-113 406 MPH@15000 FT. HP. 1475

World War Two Weekend June 4-6, 2004 Reading, PA
Over 70 planes including a P-38 (hopin' for GG)
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

SKIDRO_79FS
05-18-2004, 09:46 PM
Wayno, The "Final Critque" in Caidin's book was written by the man who prompted the book's creation, Capt. Arthur Heiden and yes, anything he tells you can be taken as truth. I have known Art for several years now and he's an amazing man. He's recently been quite ill otherwise I would be asking his opinions on this.

The rest of "Fork-Tailed Devil" is alright, there are some glaring errors (especially the spellings of several names) and some say there are a few outright fabrications in the book. Like you I had a copy of it way back when and it kept me enthralled. I still refer to it now and then. BTW, I recently saw it available as either an e-book or PDF file.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to find out about the P-38 get Warren Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning", most former 38 drivers I know consider it the definitive book on the aircraft and, since Bodie had access to the Lockheed archives, he had the edge over most other researchers when he wrote it.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/SKIDRO-signatureimg.jpg
VICTORY BY VALOR, GENTLEMEN TO THE END

wayno7777
05-18-2004, 10:02 PM
Thanks, I have a Wings from Aug. 1978 and it has the conclusion of an article called "Skybolt" by Warren M. Bodie. Maybe that was taken from his book? Besides reading "Skybolt", I think I may have read it at a library when I was stationed in Hawaii. You know, it's funny how the P-38 stirs up emotions now just as it did in it's heyday.

World War Two Weekend June 4-6, 2004 Reading, PA
Over 70 planes including a P-38 (hopin' for GG)
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

SKIDRO_79FS
05-18-2004, 10:17 PM
Bodie's written several books, and co-authored a few others. He also did a book on the T-Bolt. He's also contributed to a number of publications through the years and I've been told he owns the biggest private collection of WWII vintage photographs anywhere.

Here are some of the books he's written:

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Widewing.html

Yes, it is amazing how nearly six decades after the fact we're still arguing about the P-38. I seriously doubt we'll ever come to an agreement though.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/SKIDRO-signatureimg.jpg
VICTORY BY VALOR, GENTLEMEN TO THE END

wayno7777
05-18-2004, 10:33 PM
Thanks again! Am checking out site.

World War Two Weekend June 4-6, 2004 Reading, PA
Over 70 planes including a P-38 (hopin' for GG)
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

geetarman
05-19-2004, 09:14 AM
Count me as one of those who love it (even as modelled now). I can't wait to see what, if any, corrections are made in the forthcoming patch.