PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Pilots 'Rhymes/Songs' regarding P51/P38 turn ability



Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 06:13 PM
Just found these ditties that the US pilots SUPPOSEDLY used to sing during WW2. Everything between the lines is quoted, so I dont say its gospel. But these sayings sure see to tell us a bit about the P38/P51 turn rates if they are real. (I have no real way of telling if they are or not, some P38 fan could simply have made them up)


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

"Don't give me a P-51.
It was all right for fighting the Hun,
But if fighting the Jap you try,
You'll run out of sky.
Don't give me a P-51."

(The reference to "running out of sky" refers to the great amount of
altitude lost in dogfighting the maneverable Japanese fighters.)

In contrast, they sang about the Lightning:

"The P-38 is some machine,
The answer to a flyer's dream.
She'll dive, loop and climb
And turn on a dime.
To every pilot, she's the queen."

It's interesting that these two ditties imply that pilots thought the
P-38 was more maneuverable than the P-51. It could be that they simply
trusted the Lockheed not to come apart during violent maneuvers, and were
leery of pushing the North American fighter. It's even more interesting
that in the MTO and the ETO, apparently, P-38 pilots were a little afraid
of their mounts and hesitated to dogfight Luftwaffe fighters. Go figure.


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

Make your own decision.

Whole page


http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 06:13 PM
Just found these ditties that the US pilots SUPPOSEDLY used to sing during WW2. Everything between the lines is quoted, so I dont say its gospel. But these sayings sure see to tell us a bit about the P38/P51 turn rates if they are real. (I have no real way of telling if they are or not, some P38 fan could simply have made them up)


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

"Don't give me a P-51.
It was all right for fighting the Hun,
But if fighting the Jap you try,
You'll run out of sky.
Don't give me a P-51."

(The reference to "running out of sky" refers to the great amount of
altitude lost in dogfighting the maneverable Japanese fighters.)

In contrast, they sang about the Lightning:

"The P-38 is some machine,
The answer to a flyer's dream.
She'll dive, loop and climb
And turn on a dime.
To every pilot, she's the queen."

It's interesting that these two ditties imply that pilots thought the
P-38 was more maneuverable than the P-51. It could be that they simply
trusted the Lockheed not to come apart during violent maneuvers, and were
leery of pushing the North American fighter. It's even more interesting
that in the MTO and the ETO, apparently, P-38 pilots were a little afraid
of their mounts and hesitated to dogfight Luftwaffe fighters. Go figure.


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

Make your own decision.

Whole page


http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

Enforcer572005
07-31-2006, 06:31 PM
Yeah those are bits from the ever growing "throw a nickel on the grass, save a fitgher pilot's a s s" song. Last i heard it was up to the late 50s....and there is one version that says "dont give me a P-38, the props they counter-rotate." depends on where youre flying i guess.

the 38's performance was much better at the lower altitudes common in the Pacific than in the high alts in Europe. It did much better there, but the pilots in the pacific seem to have had more training in proper tactics to use agains the japanese. Martin caiden's excellent book on the 38 (forked tail devil i think it was called) did a great study on this.

There is also a verse about the F-86D (as in my sig): "dont give me an 86D, it's got radar and rockets, and AB I know that, I dont care, it blows up in midair, dont give me an 86D."

The F-86D did tend to blow up sometimes when you hit afterburner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

oh, and those problems highlighted in that post on that site are a bit exagerated. the 51 had some structural failures, but most pilots trusted the sturdiness of the design. Its worse problem was in the B/C models with the guns jamming, due to the guns being canted and teh g forces causing the belts to bind. This was fixed on the D, and some field mods on the B also took care of the problem.

I would take issue with the success of the 51 in hte pacific....but i have no actual figures, just many pilot accounts, and it was the only thing with the range to escort 29s from Iwo. modern day pilots dont have any qualms about the plane having any of those problems. Everything has a teething period.

Chuck_Older
07-31-2006, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Don't give me a P-51.
It was all right for fighting the Hun,
But if fighting the Jap you try,
You'll run out of sky.
Don't give me a P-51." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I confess to skepticism on this one:

""Don't give me a P-51.
It was all right for fighting the Hun,
But if fighting the Jap you try,
You'll run out of sky.
Don't give me a P-51.""

Sing it to yourself. It's quite forced, you have to drag out the "Ja-ap" to two syllables. Same with "You'll run out of sky". Any dummy who could carry a tune in a bucket would add another couple syllables, like "You'll have soon run out of sky" to make the song sing-able

These guys weren't like us; many of them could and did play instruments, and they adapted songs for the piano with new words. I honestly can't imagine pilots standardising a song like this, with such poor cadence

I've never heard anything about the P-38 except the props counter-rotate myself

In any case, it's just a song, the planes didn't perform according to a drunken ditty just because a lot of guys sang it. They said a lot of things in that song, it was bravado, none of the planes were worth a damn, every one was lousy and the jist was, drink up boys, you ain't coming home after the next one, ha-ha, pass the scotch, I'm flying a Peter Four-Oh, it's a hell of an aircraft I know, it's a ground looping b@stard, I'm such to get plastered, so quick, whisky rye and gin on the double to the rear harch

PBNA-Boosher
07-31-2006, 08:34 PM
Sorry, but the original poem was "Don't give me a P-39," and it was posted in the original IL2 forums IIRC.

Waldo.Pepper
07-31-2006, 08:36 PM
Japanese enemy + Pacific ocean {big big big} + Sharks. Therefore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif - P-38 (two engines).

Cajun76
07-31-2006, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:

I would take issue with the success of the 51 in hte pacific....but i have no actual figures, just many pilot accounts, and <span class="ev_code_RED">it was the only thing with the range to escort 29s from Iwo.</span> modern day pilots dont have any qualms about the plane having any of those problems. Everything has a teething period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


*splutter* *huff* *huff* *cough* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Check the sig. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif


IIRC, I have heard of P-38 pilots standing her on wingtip and pulling back, holding the edge of a stall at 74 mph and not being worried about snap stall like most any other plane would because of the counter-rotating props. They thought it was great.

VW-IceFire
07-31-2006, 09:20 PM
Thing is that even in the sim the P-38 is a more manueverable fighter. Its just less agile in transitions between manuevers. The P-51 can snap into a manuever quicker but can't hold it like the P-38 can. Infact the 109 and 190 are both similarly disadvantaged against the P-38. And the sim doesn't even have the stall speed correct...which is what really shocks me is that the P-38 in real life must have been one hell of a ride in a swirling fight over Europe.

GR142-Pipper
08-01-2006, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thing is that even in the sim the P-38 is a more manueverable fighter. Its just less agile in transitions between manuevers. The P-51 can snap into a manuever quicker but can't hold it like the P-38 can. Infact the 109 and 190 are both similarly disadvantaged against the P-38. And the sim doesn't even have the stall speed correct...which is what really shocks me is that the P-38 in real life must have been one hell of a ride in a swirling fight over Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What truly (and artifically) spoils the P-38 in this game is the premature onset of the elevator compressability effects as well as the seemingly slow roll rate. The developers (finally) improved its flight performance in the 4.02 release but it reverted to "pooch-dom" in 4.03 and subsequent (currently 4.05). Too bad too because it was fun to vertically fight in.

GR142-Pipper

PikeBishop
08-01-2006, 05:51 AM
Dear All,
I am glad to see that over the years we are begining to see that many, if not most fighters had their teething troubles. I was always irritated by authors (particularly American) would always say that the Japanese fighters were very good BUT..... had loads of teething troubles and mechanical failures which made them much less potent and so not as effective as the U.S. fighters opposing them. The Ki84 and its Engine problems, the Shiden and its wheelbrake problems, the Raiden and its disintigration problems, the Shoki and its manoeuvering limitations, the Zero and its lack of armour problems, the Hien and its engine problems. What I always wanted to know is how they compared with opposing fighters with pilots lucky enough to have a mount with none of these problems, but it now seems that the U.S. aircraft had just as many, but nonone wanted to draw attention to that.
I am glad also that Oleg does not take a lot of notice when players whine about the machines in this game and argue on the basis of anecdotal evidence.
Best regards,
SLP

BOA_Allmenroder
08-01-2006, 07:55 AM
Here's one my father used to sing: he was tail gunner in a Navy Privateer.

Sung to the tune of the Wabash Cannonball:

"Listen to jingle,
hear the rumble and roar.
As we roll down the runway,
in our old B24.

Listen to the rumble,
as we hear the Captain call,
'If we don't get the airspeed up,
we won't get up at all.'"

Slickun
08-01-2006, 01:07 PM
Japanese captured a P-51. They were amazed that it didn't leak oil like a seive, like theirs did.

Saburo Sakai flew a P-51, and was astounded at the speed and control he had in a dive. He apparently did a high G high mach diving turn that was impossible in his Zero.

The P-51 had a limited career in the PTO. But, the time it was there, it performed in just as stellar a fashion as it did in Europe.

The P-38 ruled the skies for the AAf in the PTO. Its low limiting mach number and quick entry into compressibility were not a factor in the mostly mid and low levels the PTO air war was fought at.

Phas3e
08-01-2006, 02:17 PM
Ive read these poems in a book called
'I was there...Lying flat on my back'

it had one for each of the major US fighters,
the P39 one I remember was.

Dont give me a P39
with the engine thats mounted behind
she'll dive and she'll spin
but she'll soon auger in
Dont give me a P39

The P40 or Peter four oh as it called it
mentioned ground looping,
and the P38 one had about its twin booms and dive problems IIRC.

Slickun
08-01-2006, 02:41 PM
Wasn't it
"tumble and spin?"

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thing is that even in the sim the P-38 is a more manueverable fighter. Its just less agile in transitions between manuevers. The P-51 can snap into a manuever quicker but can't hold it like the P-38 can. Infact the 109 and 190 are both similarly disadvantaged against the P-38. And the sim doesn't even have the stall speed correct...which is what really shocks me is that the P-38 in real life must have been one hell of a ride in a swirling fight over Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What truly (and artifically) spoils the P-38 in this game is the premature onset of the elevator compressability effects as well as the seemingly slow roll rate. The developers (finally) improved its flight performance in the 4.02 release but it reverted to "pooch-dom" in 4.03 and subsequent (currently 4.05). Too bad too because it was fun to vertically fight in.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure the P38 roll rate was quite poor, Piopper. I have seen a chart of roll rates from 1944, and the P38 is right at the bottom in roll rate, with the Zero. Its only when the power assited ailerons start to advantage the plane over non powered planes that it manages to catch up in roll rate. Thats at very very high speeds

I love the P38 in the sim, its great fun.

anarchy52
08-01-2006, 03:49 PM
I think P-38s had a far easier opponents in PTO. It had a minimum 100 km/h speed advantage on the deck and even more at alt. For comparison that is similar to performance margin D9 has over Spit V!
Add Zero's poor high speed manuverability, high voulnerability and low standard of pilot training and there is no mistery.

You should be more afraid of mechanical failures leading to swimming with sharks. in those circumstances twin engined plane is the obvious choice.

Same with MTO - P-38 earned it's reputation fighting italians flying obsolete fighters and intercepting defenseless transports.

Against more up-to date crafts encountered over western europe it didn't do well.

berg417448
08-01-2006, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I think P-38s had a far easier opponents in PTO. It had a minimum 100 km/h speed advantage on the deck and even more at alt. For comparison that is similar to performance margin D9 has over Spit V!
Add Zero's poor high speed manuverability, high voulnerability and low standard of pilot training and there is no mistery.

You should be more afraid of mechanical failures leading to swimming with sharks. in those circumstances twin engined plane is the obvious choice.

Same with MTO - P-38 earned it's reputation fighting italians flying obsolete fighters and intercepting defenseless transports.

Against more up-to date crafts encountered over western europe it didn't do well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These German pilots seem to have much more respect for it than you:

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

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

P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3.. Hans Pichler 75 confirmed kills North Africa

€œOver Tunisia, my flight encountered 4 P-38's and we slipped in behind them, virtually unnoticed. Although our Gustavs gave all they could, the distance between us and the Lightnings hardly diminished. At a distance of about 500 meters, I fired all my guns, but my shells exploded behind one of the P-38s. After several more ineffective bursts, the U.S. pilots obviously sensed danger. Applying full war-emergency power, they disappeared, leaving us with our mouths wide open. The five minute chase caused my engine to seize. One of the connecting rods pushing itself right through the cowling... €œ

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 04:02 PM
Other Germans thought the P38's were poor tho mate.

I could find other quotes which say the P38 was no probelm for the contemorary German fighters, but I am busy right now.

One was Adolf Galland who said the P38 was a 'mistake' (he was against all twin engined fighters) and no problem to deal with.

berg417448
08-01-2006, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Other Germans thought the P38's were poor tho mate.

I could find other quotes which say the P38 was no probelm for the contemorary German fighters, but I am busy right now.

One was Adolf Galland who said the P38 was a 'mistake' (he was against all twin engined fighters) and no problem to deal with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, you do know that Galland never scored a victory over a P-38 don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sure, you can find all sorts of quotes. Just pointing out that claims that the P-38 only did well against inferior opponents or defensless transport aircraft are just a lot of bias and bunk.

faustnik
08-01-2006, 04:15 PM
The P-38 was the fastest low level Allied fighter in North Africa. With no engine torque, it could stay in a high-power, low-speed turn longer than its single engines oponents. Certainly it was effective at lower altitudes.

The bad rep in the ETO came from problems with the wing intercoolers, which limited power at high altitudes.

Maj_Solo
08-01-2006, 04:16 PM
Nothing wrong with the P-51s. With G-Suit some pulled 10G during the war. The wings got bent and had to be replaced, but coming apart ...... no.

Reference I think is 1) Andersson, 2) War diary of the Mighty 8th.

Slickun
08-01-2006, 04:27 PM
A poll taken of LW pilots after the war put the Spitfire in first place.

The P-38 was last.

The LW unit that operated captured fighters for training also felt the P-38 was least effective among the AAF's "Big Three".

Slickun
08-01-2006, 04:29 PM
BTW, in the ETO the P-38 had a higher loss per sortie than the Mustang.

GR142-Pipper
08-01-2006, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,
I am glad to see that over the years we are begining to see that many, if not most fighters had their teething troubles. I was always irritated by authors (particularly American) would always say that the Japanese fighters were very good BUT..... had loads of teething troubles and mechanical failures which made them much less potent and so not as effective as the U.S. fighters opposing them. The Ki84 and its Engine problems, the Shiden and its wheelbrake problems, the Raiden and its disintigration problems, the Shoki and its manoeuvering limitations, the Zero and its lack of armour problems, the Hien and its engine problems. What I always wanted to know is how they compared with opposing fighters with pilots lucky enough to have a mount with none of these problems, but it now seems that the U.S. aircraft had just as many, but nonone wanted to draw attention to that.
I am glad also that Oleg does not take a lot of notice when players whine about the machines in this game and argue on the basis of anecdotal evidence.
Best regards,
SLP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed, even when the anecdotal evidence is well-documented and overwealming.

GR142-Pipper

BigKahuna_GS
08-01-2006, 11:52 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Other Germans thought the P38's were poor tho mate.
One was Adolf Galland who said the P38 was a 'mistake' (he was against all twin engined fighters) and no problem to deal with.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


'The Luftwaffe fighter force. The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al, edited by david C. Isby ISBN 1-85367-327-7

Under chapter 30 'GAF opinions of allied aircraft'

Interigation of Generalleutnant Galland,Generalfeldmarschel Milch,Oberstleutnant Bar,Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neuman at kaufbeuren Germany 2nd september 1945.

'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast and had a good rate of climb below 20,000 feet. Visibility backwards , downwards and over the engines was very poor.It was considered a good strafer due to its armament, visibilty, speed and silent motors.Its main drawback were its vulnerability and lack of maneuverability. On the deck, it could out-run the me.109 and fw190. German fighters would always attack the P38s in preference to other allied escort fighters.'

'The Thunderbolt (P47) This aircraft was exceptionally fast in a dive, but could be outdistanced at the start of the dive by the Me109. It would absorb many cannon hits and still fly.'

'The Mustang (P51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range, climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability. It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire. It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'

'The Warhawk(P40) This aircraft was inferior as a modern fighter.The models with only 4x50 cal MGs were considered to be too lightly armed. It was slow and could not dive or climb. Its best quality was that it could outturn the Me109 and Fw190 below 12,000 feet.'

What is interesting is Galland did not have much if any experience flying against P38s until late in the war when he was almost killed by either a P38J-25 or P38L while flying a 190D-9.
Galland always compared the P-38 in his writings and public speaking to the Me110. But when he was invited to a gathering of World War II fighter pilots at Maxwell AFB, he confessed to the fact that John Lowell had him cornered even though Galland had a clear advantage when they merged. Had Lowell not been low on fuel and a long way from home, Galland would likely never have lived to tell his stories.

This is also in the book "Top Guns"

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/364/364.html

P38 Pilot Lt/Col John Lowell, Quoted in the book "Top Guns" by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan

"Our group received several P38Ls just before the P51s arrived. This latest Lightning had dive flaps under the wings, improved power and a gun camera located away from the nose. On a day we were stood down, General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English Aces, Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honington and show us slides of English Spitfires that had been equipped with external tanks loke US Fighters. Those tanks allowed Spitfires to penetrate deep into Germany. Most of the US pilots didn€t know about the Spits long range, and some of the Spitfires had been fired upon before American pilots realized their insignia was the Royal Air Force and not a German Swastika. ME-109s, P-51s and Spitfires were not easily distinguishable from one another until close enough to make combat.

All the 364th Fighter Group Pilots attended Donaldson€s slide picture presentation in our briefing room. When he finished, he described the new Spitfire XIV he had flown to our base. It had a five-bladed prop, a bigger engine, and improved firepower. Then he said, €œIf one of you bloody bastards has enough guts, I€ll fly mock combat above your field and show you how easily this Spit XIV can whip your best pilot!€

The entire group started clapping and hollered €œBig John! Big John!€

That was me, so I asked him, €œWhat is your fuel load?€

He replied, €œHalf petrol.€

€œWhat is your combat load?€

He said, €œNo ammo.€

We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes. I took off in a new P38L after my crew chief had removed the ammo and put back the minimum counter balance, dropped the external tanks and sucked out half the internal fuel load. I climbed very high, so that as I dived down to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, I would be close to 600 mph. When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail. When he did a wingover from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail. Naturally he turned into a full power right Lufbery as I closed in. I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we€d had hot guns he would have been shot down. He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-Sed from about 1000 feet. I followed him with the new flaps, banked only about 45 degrees, but still dropped below the treetops.

The men of the 364th were watching this fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several told me later that they though I would crash. But they were wrong!. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XIV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XIV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base."
______


http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1906_8558119

The first operational P-38 squadron got going the day after black thursday, October 14th, 1943. The 38 was an easy mark, because it was the only mark. Only two squadrons were active in late 1943 and they didn't shine well at all--green, out numbered, and with such great range there were no other fighters around. Worse they were tied to close escort.

High Altitude engine problems were common in the ETO for "der Gabelschwanz Teufel" (name given by Luft in MTO for P38).

Compressability. Most ETO fights were at high alt...and the 38 had problems Split-S and giving give chase, not until the P-38J-25-LO with dive flaps.

"P-38's from the J-25's onward were what we should have had when we went operational in October 1943. The compressibility problem of the P-38 was also experienced by P-47 Thunderbolts, and was not a mystery to aeronautical design engineers.

The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster. The dive recovery flaps ameliorated the "compressibility" (Mach limitation) of earlier Lightnings. An added benefit of the dive recovery flaps was their ability to pitch the nose 10-20 degrees "up" momentarily when trying to out turn the Luftwaffe's best, even when using the flap combat position on the selector. Of course the nose "pitch-up" resulted in increased aerodynamic drag, and must be used cautiously. High speed is generally preferred over low speed in combat situations. Properly flown, the Fowler flaps of the P-38 allowed very tight turning radius."

The simple fact was the P38 was not ready for the job of high altitude escort in the ETO but was pressed into service anyways dispite objections and recommendations for improvements. Since the WPB would not allow P38 production to temporarily stop the best version that was optimized for high alitude performance would not be produced.

Had a P38K with 1875hp engines, Paddle Blade props, hydraulic airlerons, dive recovery flaps and improved cockpit heating appeared in the fall of 1943 a different history would of been written for the P38 in the ETO. As it was the P38 had only one principle production facility for most of the war and it was a difficult plane to mass produce, also the much needed hydraulic airlerons (transport plane shot down by RAF) and dive recovery flaps took too long to find their way on to P38s in the ETO. Gen.DoLittle had to choose the P51 in light of all the P38 high altitude problems.

However if the P38 was in its right element it generally out performed the P47 and P51 as in the MTO & PTO areas of operations.

P38K

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

"The new propellers were not the only design changes made in the search for greater performance. This airframe was configured for the Allison V1710F-15 powerplants which were rated at over 1,875 bhp in War Emergency Power (as compared to 1,725 bhp for the V1710F-17 in the P-38L). This was the only P-38 so configured. The potent combination of the engine/propeller promised excellent performance.

Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.

The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was

In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down."

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1906_46305810

Last P38 ETO Escort Mission
On 26 Sept., P-38s of the 479 downed 19 e/a near Munster. Shortly after
that most P-38s were gradually replaced by P-51s.
The last long-range bomber escort in northern Europe by P-38s was on 19
Nov. '44 when 367FG escorted bombers to Merzig, Germany. FW-190s
attempted to intercept. P-38s downed six with no losses. No bombers were
lost either. It was a good way to end the P-38s air-superiority role in
northern Europe.

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1906_7988111

The P38 flew the longest escort missions of the war (2200 miles round trip to the Borneo oil fields from bases in New Guinea), successfully battling such very capable fighters as the Ki-44 over the target. A P-38 fighter group (the 1FG in the MTO) was the only USAAF fighter unit to win two Presidential Unit Citations within the space of 5 days (one PUC was for a long-range low level attack against Axis airfields at Foggia, Italy flown from bases in North Africa, the other was for a bomber escort mission during which some 30 P-38s fought off about 125 German fighters, not letting a single bomber be shot down).

http://www.ehangar.com/printgallery/uploadImg/print/ntpacificglory_big.jpg

This is from one of the hottest Pacific Theater P38 FG 475th which had the highest scoring american aces such as Bong (40 kills) & McGuire (38 kills) in WW2.

Every fighter pilot has an their own opinon, this is USAAF Ace Fighter Pilot Captain John Tilley who flew P51s, P47s, P38s & P80s in WW2; flew F-86 in Korea.
http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html

"My last 3 kills (Ki-84 Frank, George & Zeke) were made while flying the P38L, which I considered the greatest fighting machine of the war."
"I guess P38s were the great love of my life. They handeled bueatifully, were very forgiving and would do almost anything you would asked of them. I loved the two counter rotating engines (one of those engines brought me home on several occasions) which eliminated the torque problems associated with single engine prop jobs. I also loved all those guns in the nose, becuase we didn't need to worry about a converging cone of fire as you did with wing mounted guns. The P38L clocked a good 40mph faster on the deck than the P51D I flew with similar loads. The P47s, P39s, P40s weren't even in the same ball park. The P38 would also carry one hell of a big load. I remember someone in the Group getting airborne in 1700' feet with two 1-ton bombs hung under the plane."

To be fair here is what Tilley didnt like about the P38:

"What didnt I like about the P38? High altitude flight and cockpit layout. Although designed as an intercepter, it was a pain in the buns above 30,000ft. The cockpit heat and windshield deicing was not adequate for cold ambient air. The turbo chargers had a habit of running wild above 30,000ft. The cockpit was very cramped and I perferred a stick to the yoke and wheel flight controls in the P38 and cockpit layout was God awful to the other fighters I've flown. On our pitch out landing approaches I was reaching for things all over the place and had to change hands on the controls at least twice. In spite of all of the above, I still think it was the greatest aircraft I have ever flown including five of the Air Forces earliest jets. "

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1906_10485121
This is more of the interview of Captain Tilley and the Positioning of the Oscar he shot down while stall turning. As you can see both the Oscar and P38 are turning hard circles. The other P38 combat report the pilot had been manuevering and then decided to hang by his props at 65mph with full flaps for a firing solution.

7) John A. Tilley, an ace with the 431st FS/475th FG, "...remembers that Mac (Tom McGuire-38 victory ace) was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145 km/h)." "Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not (in the 475th FG, anyway- they were an elite group formed on P-38s in-theater with an excellent core group of aces-HB)." "...so how did I get my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got into a jam. And I'm sure the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single-engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed a 360 degree of this turn, he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine. I couldn't see a thing through the windshiled so I had to ask a squdronmate to lead me home. the I had to crank down the side window and reach around to clear a spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, pages 46-47.

PikeBishop
08-02-2006, 02:38 AM
Dear Pipper,
The mere fact that we are getting conflicting reports here of anecdotal evidence means it cannot be relied upon. I say again.....I'm glad that we are seeing that most aircraft had teething problems.....INCLUDING the U.S. aircraft, and not just everybody else's.
Best regards,
SLP

Enforcer572005
08-02-2006, 10:49 PM
All planes have their strengths and weaknesses, and the guys who could use/aviod those were the most successful in combat.

there were several incidents of 51s shedding thier wings, but that problem was a freak factory defect.

What im curious of (and cant find much info on it) is the performance of the P-51A with the allisons in the pacific. they were used a good bit in the CBI theatre with some success. The 14th AF also got some B models.

lrrp22
08-02-2006, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:

What im curious of (and cant find much info on it) is the performance of the P-51A with the allisons in the pacific. they were used a good bit in the CBI theatre with some success. The 14th AF also got some B models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here you go Enforcer...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-I.html

Knock yourself out! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LRRP

GR142-Pipper
08-03-2006, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Pipper,
The mere fact that we are getting conflicting reports here of anecdotal evidence means it cannot be relied upon. I say again.....I'm glad that we are seeing that most aircraft had teething problems.....INCLUDING the U.S. aircraft, and not just everybody else's.
Best regards,
SLP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm certainly not denying that every aircraft has teething troubles to work through. However, what we are talking about are the many first-hand reports by people who actually flew the aircraft (quite successfully) in combat. The pig of a P-38 we currently have in this game in no way reflects its real life counterpart (the same holds true for the P-47, P-51, F4U and others). Yes, most are mid/late war U.S. fighter aircraft that are the most lacking in this game not that there aren't others. In short, these U.S. aircaft are junk. This is not news to anyone who has played this game for any period of time. Why do you think so many fly the 25# Spit and so few fly U.S. fighters? The answer is that this model Spit is the only aircraft that's really competitive with the modeling of their opponents.

Respectfully and as an aside, if the choice is to believe the many real world combat pilot accounts on one hand or Oleg the programmer on the other, my money's squarely with the real pilots. You're welcome to believe anyone you wish.

....just my take.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-03-2006, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Great post, Kahuna.

GR142-Pipper

PikeBishop
08-03-2006, 01:30 AM
Dear Pipper.
Again I must say that hard data will prevail and not anecdotal evidence. Oleg has to be using real data. If you look at the dimensions power loadings and wing loadings of various aircraft you will find that with 'the best' aircraft of each side, the pattern of these ratios are similar eg the loadings and dimensions of the later marks of Spitfire are pretty much the same as those of the Ki84 and both were deemed as excellent fighters. So it is the balance of all these factors that makes a good aircraft.
Best regards,
SLP

Xiolablu3
08-03-2006, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The pig of a P-38 we currently have in this game in no way reflects its real life counterpart (the same holds true for the P-47, P-51, F4U and others). Yes, most are mid/late war U.S. fighter aircraft that are the most lacking in this game not that there aren't others. In short, these U.S. aircaft are junk. This is not news to anyone who has played this game for any period of time. Why do you think so many fly the 25# Spit and so few fly U.S. fighters? The answer is that this model Spit is the only aircraft that's really competitive with the modeling of their opponents.

Respectfully and as an aside, if the choice is to believe the many real world combat pilot accounts on one hand or Oleg the programmer on the other, my money's squarely with the real pilots. You're welcome to believe anyone you wish.

....just my take.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot believe an old timer like you is posting this rubbish.

The reason the Spitfire is so popular is because it turns so well, its a pure dogfighter and people like to dogfight in the game. The new guys especially find the energy fighters hard to use and the SPitfire very easy to use.

The P47,P51 and P38 were NOT dogfighters, you used the speed and range of these planes to be successful.

Just becsause they cant dogfight like the SPitfire (named as the best Allied dogfighter by German pilots so its no real surprise), it doesnt mean they are useless or pigs. You just need to fly them differently.

P47 is great up high, just like it should be and a pig down low, but very fast. Same with the P51. P38 has a great climb and can carry amazing payloads.

Ahh, never mind, I give up. I am a newbie to this game compared to you, and I have seen the US planes being used correctly, and being deadly. ALL of them.

joeap
08-03-2006, 07:03 AM
No point arguing Xiolablu3, Pipper is one of the "rediots" who lacks the entertainment value of Hayateace. Your points make too much sense you see.

Kocur_
08-03-2006, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In short, these U.S. aircaft are junk. This is not news to anyone who has played this game for any period of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm...
http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/9449/statscz7.th.png (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=statscz7.png)
But that proves nothing naturally, just a lucky noob in a DF server, right?

GR142-Pipper
08-04-2006, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I cannot believe an old timer like you is posting this rubbish.

The reason the Spitfire is so popular is because it turns so well, its a pure dogfighter and people like to dogfight in the game. The new guys especially find the energy fighters hard to use and the SPitfire very easy to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully disagree, Xio. In my view, the reason the Spitfire is so popular is because it is just about the only Allied mid/late war fighter that is competitive from an ENERGY perspective. It's not that the Spit is so good, it's just that the other fighters (mainly U.S. P-51, P-47, F4U, P-38) are so lacking. Furthermore, doesn't matter if the Spit is a good turner if it's opponents don't turn. It's all about energy manipulation/conversion/retention...turning or not

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P47,P51 and P38 were NOT dogfighters, you used the speed and range of these planes to be successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes they used speed and range but not exclusively. It's just not enough to prevail in combat. Again, there are many, many accounts of these aircraft in full blown engagements to limit the decisive traits to merely speed and range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just becsause they cant dogfight like the SPitfire (named as the best Allied dogfighter by German pilots so its no real surprise), it doesnt mean they are useless or pigs. You just need to fly them differently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No one is expecting them to be Zero equivalents in the horizontal. What is expected, however, (especially given the length of time the game has been available) is that their energy characteristics be correctly modeled...and they're not even close. I'm just about certain Maddox uses concocted Ps data. Assuming his airframe models are reasonably correct, this is just about the only reason which would account for the huge differences in flight characteristics of these same aircraft from 4.00 to the present.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P47 is great up high, just like it should be and a pig down low, but very fast. Same with the P51. P38 has a great climb and can carry amazing payloads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, the P-51 excelled up high but it was by no means a pig down low. Same for the P-47, P-38 and F4U. An even cursory look at each of these aircraft's respective war record will provide countless testamonials (and gun-cam footage) to validate this fact. What occurs in this game and these many testamonials just don't align. Perfection is certainly not an expectation but where we're at now is just not at all close enough. As a fellow enthusiast of the game I wish this wasn't the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ahh, never mind, I give up. I am a newbie to this game compared to you, and I have seen the US planes being used correctly, and being deadly. ALL of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If by "correctly" you mean very defensively, I would agree. They're flown in this manner because (as currently modeled) they're incapable of being flown any other way. Do you seriously think that if the U.S. mid/late war U.S. fighters as represented in this game were what the REAL pilots had to fly in WWII that their war records would have been anywhere near the same? There's just no way. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that most game players on Western Front servers fly Spitfires and few fly the others. If they were relatively even regarding energy as you seem to infer, you'd see a lot more people flying a broader cross section of these aircaft and this is not the case.

Look, all I'm looking for is game accuracy...no more, no less.

As an aside, I used to fly F-4s and F-14s for a living in the real world so I know what energy fighting is all about up front and personal (especially important in the F-4). The concepts are not new to me and I can easily recognize their presence or absence. Other former RW military flyers here (to wit: BSS Vidar, and others) can as well. As a matter of fact Vidar also has real P-51 time. Ask him what he thinks of this plane in this game. You'll likely find his response interesting.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-04-2006, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Pipper.
Again I must say that hard data will prevail and not anecdotal evidence. Oleg has to be using real data. ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean hard data like recognized sterling war records and real gun camera footage? Yes, that kind of hard data always does prevail.

Btw, Oleg may be using real numbers but that's not always the same as "real data". Trust me.

GR142-Pipper

BigKahuna_GS
08-04-2006, 03:23 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">X--The P47,P51 and P38 were NOT dogfighters, you used the speed and range of these planes to be successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


While the US fighters are catagorized as energy fighters and certanly not in the same league as a Spit when it comes to turn fighting, it is obvious from the hundreds if not thousands of combat report from the ETO to the PTO that many high alitude fights turned into intense turning fights at low altitude.

Didnt you start the thread of 8th AF P51 combat report from Spitfireperformance ?
You should try reading the reports http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P51 dogfights at low alt

Eight-360 degree turns
1st Lt. Hugh Bodiford, 17 April 1945, 55th FG--"I could outturn him easily, but could not pull quite enough lead to get strikes."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...diford-17april45.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bodiford-17april45.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bodiford-17april45.jpg


720 degrees of turning with 190
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...whitelaw-24may44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-whitelaw-24may44.jpg)

Four to Five 360 degree turns
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG--Two (2) Fw 190's destroyed, one (1) Me 109 destroyed. "After going round and round four or five times, Jerry split S'ed."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14jan45.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14jan45.jpg)

Five- 360 degree turns
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-tear-2nov44.jpg
"We went into a Luftberry circle at about 10,000 ft, making approximately five 360? turns. I was turning slightly inside of him which he evidently saw because he reefed it in harder. He suddenly snapped over and went into a spin."

Six- 360 degree turns
1st Lt. Robert W. Foy, 19 May 1944, 357th FG "I made six 360? turns with the Me. 109s still following when a grey nosed P-51 attacked the rear ship, shooting down in flames.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-foy-19may44.jpg

Six- Turns
"While reforming two Fw 190's wre observed in front of us, one of which I attacked and fired on from about six turns observing hits on engine, cockpit and wings."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...pelton-11april44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-stepelton-11april44.jpg)

20 Min Fight
"We fought for about 20 minutes and it was necessary for me to put down combat flaps three times in order to turn with him."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...52-moran-27may44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-moran-27may44.jpg)

10 min Stall Fight with 190
The K-14 sight was very helpful. I don't think I could have hit the 190 without it."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-smith-27sept44.jpg


P38 low alt low speed fight

7) John A. Tilley, an ace with the 431st FS/475th FG, "...remembers that Mac (Tom McGuire-38 victory ace) was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145 km/h)." "Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not (in the 475th FG, anyway- they were an elite group formed on P-38s in-theater with an excellent core group of aces-HB)."

so how did I get my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily I think it happened because the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; and I both believed he could out turn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and only two of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got into a jam. And I'm sure the &lt;Japanese pilot&gt; figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph, and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good old counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single-engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed a 360 degree of this turn, he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine.

ImpStarDuece
08-04-2006, 03:40 AM
RAF ditty about the B-17, mostly sung by Lancaster and Halifax pilots (to the tune of 'Glory, Glory Hallelujah')

We're flying Flyin' Fortresses at thirty thousand feet,
we're flying Flyin' Fortresses at thirty thousand feet,
we've bags of point five ammo and one teeny weeny bomb
and we drop the bugger from so high we don't know where its gone.

Glory, glory shall we drop it?
Glory, glory shall we drop it?
We've bags of point five ammo and one teeny weeny bomb
and we drop the bugger from so high we don't know where its gone.

Kurfurst__
08-04-2006, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
What occurs in this game and these many testamonials just don't align. Perfection is certainly not an expectation but where we're at now is just not at all close enough. As a fellow enthusiast of the game I wish this wasn't the case.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is because the flight model is based on wartime flight testing and aerodynamic rules, not on many testimonials. Thank God for that, otherwise we would have Plane A outturnning Plane B, yet also Plane B outturning Plane A, and you could never get killed in combat, given there's no testimonials from those who's been outturned and were killed...

joeap
08-04-2006, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
What occurs in this game and these many testamonials just don't align. Perfection is certainly not an expectation but where we're at now is just not at all close enough. As a fellow enthusiast of the game I wish this wasn't the case.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is because the flight model is based on wartime flight testing and aerodynamic rules, not on many testimonials. Thank God for that, otherwise we would have Plane A outturnning Plane B, yet also Plane B outturning Plane A, and you could never get killed in combat, given there's no testimonials from those who's been outturned and were killed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too common sense Kurfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Truth is, I have read CONFLICTING testimonals from real world pilots. Because they are subjective as from any other human being. I recall the post of an airshow interview posted here awhile ago that contradicts what Pipper is indicating to start. Even worse would be wartime testimonals. Not that they should not be factored in but taken with cross checks and conscious of the context.

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 10:33 AM
I understand that P51 pilots did turn with 109's and FW190's Kahuna, but we cannot be sure of the state of any of the planes in these testemoials nor the speed they were flying.

WHat I meant was that the P51 and P47 were not at their BEST turnfighting and dogfighting.

Sure you can pull some lead on a 109 or 190, but why risk doffighting? You have a very fast plane which excells at high speed, dogfighting is mostly a very risky business. Energy tactics are much safer.

If I am flying a P51, I try and turn very little and use my high speed to attack and get away fast.

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I cannot believe an old timer like you is posting this rubbish.

The reason the Spitfire is so popular is because it turns so well, its a pure dogfighter and people like to dogfight in the game. The new guys especially find the energy fighters hard to use and the SPitfire very easy to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully disagree, Xio. In my view, the reason the Spitfire is so popular is because it is just about the only Allied mid/late war fighter that is competitive from an ENERGY perspective. It's not that the Spit is so good, it's just that the other fighters (mainly U.S. P-51, P-47, F4U, P-38) are so lacking. Furthermore, doesn't matter if the Spit is a good turner if it's opponents don't turn. It's all about energy manipulation/conversion/retention...turning or not

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P47,P51 and P38 were NOT dogfighters, you used the speed and range of these planes to be successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes they used speed and range but not exclusively. It's just not enough to prevail in combat. Again, there are many, many accounts of these aircraft in full blown engagements to limit the decisive traits to merely speed and range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just becsause they cant dogfight like the SPitfire (named as the best Allied dogfighter by German pilots so its no real surprise), it doesnt mean they are useless or pigs. You just need to fly them differently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No one is expecting them to be Zero equivalents in the horizontal. What is expected, however, (especially given the length of time the game has been available) is that their energy characteristics be correctly modeled...and they're not even close. I'm just about certain Maddox uses concocted Ps data. Assuming his airframe models are reasonably correct, this is just about the only reason which would account for the huge differences in flight characteristics of these same aircraft from 4.00 to the present.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P47 is great up high, just like it should be and a pig down low, but very fast. Same with the P51. P38 has a great climb and can carry amazing payloads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, the P-51 excelled up high but it was by no means a pig down low. Same for the P-47, P-38 and F4U. An even cursory look at each of these aircraft's respective war record will provide countless testamonials (and gun-cam footage) to validate this fact. What occurs in this game and these many testamonials just don't align. Perfection is certainly not an expectation but where we're at now is just not at all close enough. As a fellow enthusiast of the game I wish this wasn't the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ahh, never mind, I give up. I am a newbie to this game compared to you, and I have seen the US planes being used correctly, and being deadly. ALL of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If by "correctly" you mean very defensively, I would agree. They're flown in this manner because (as currently modeled) they're incapable of being flown any other way. Do you seriously think that if the U.S. mid/late war U.S. fighters as represented in this game were what the REAL pilots had to fly in WWII that their war records would have been anywhere near the same? There's just no way. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that most game players on Western Front servers fly Spitfires and few fly the others. If they were relatively even regarding energy as you seem to infer, you'd see a lot more people flying a broader cross section of these aircaft and this is not the case.

Look, all I'm looking for is game accuracy...no more, no less.

As an aside, I used to fly F-4s and F-14s for a living in the real world so I know what energy fighting is all about up front and personal (especially important in the F-4). The concepts are not new to me and I can easily recognize their presence or absence. Other former RW military flyers here (to wit: BSS Vidar, and others) can as well. As a matter of fact Vidar also has real P-51 time. Ask him what he thinks of this plane in this game. You'll likely find his response interesting.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for the post, it was written badly.

Last night I was flying on the Ukded2 server on a 1944 map and there was one SPitfire IX on the red side. The rest were P51, P47 and P38.

I understand the Spitfire is a better dogfighter and most people like to turnfight online, but the American big 3 are still greta planes if you use them properly. Not just defensively either, I am talking zooming in fast and climbing away, ie sensible attacks which dont risk your pilot of plane. Also using a wingman and flying in pairs.

I am sure you are a good pilot, but I am still baffled about your posts where you say these 3 planes are ****. Sure they are different to pure dogfighters, but they are still good planes.

GR142-Pipper
08-05-2006, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand the Spitfire is a better dogfighter and most people like to turnfight online, but the American big 3 are still greta planes if you use them properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's the fundamental issue that I'm trying to present to you: they (the "American big 3") don't have the necessary flight characteristics to be "flown properly". In short, they're undermodeled from an energy point of view. This relegates them to a mostly defensive (drive-by only) capability. Any chimpanzee can make a few passes and depart. Prevailing in a full-blown energy fight is another matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not just defensively either, I am talking zooming in fast and climbing away, ie sensible attacks which dont risk your pilot of plane. Also using a wingman and flying in pairs.

I am sure you are a good pilot, but I am still baffled about your posts where you say these 3 planes are ****. Sure they are different to pure dogfighters, but they are still good planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We simply disagree on this point as I think they're definitely underachievers in this game. Like I said, I don't expect the U.S. mid/late war fighters to be pure dogfighters in the horizontal-only definition. However, I certainly do expect them to be able to exhibit highly accurate energy characteristics after two or three YEARS. The same is equally true for the blue aircraft as well.

So if a Spit IX or 25# is available, I'll certainly take it but it's not for it's turning abilities...it's for its energy characteristics.

...anyway, just my take. It's not a cure for cancer...it's just a (very fun!) game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-05-2006, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
What occurs in this game and these many testamonials just don't align. Perfection is certainly not an expectation but where we're at now is just not at all close enough. As a fellow enthusiast of the game I wish this wasn't the case.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is because the flight model is based on wartime flight testing and aerodynamic rules, not on many testimonials. Thank God for that, otherwise we would have Plane A outturnning Plane B, yet also Plane B outturning Plane A, and you could never get killed in combat, given there's no testimonials from those who's been outturned and were killed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too common sense Kurfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Truth is, I have read CONFLICTING testimonals from real world pilots. Because they are subjective as from any other human being. I recall the post of an airshow interview posted here awhile ago that contradicts what Pipper is indicating to start. Even worse would be wartime testimonals. Not that they should not be factored in but taken with cross checks and conscious of the context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully Joeap, if you walked into ANY real world fighter squadron's ready room and said such a statement you would be laughed straight out of the place. Pilot reports and testamonials are the mother's milk of real life fighter doctrine. They outline how aircraft REALLY behave and interact in actual engagements.

Allow me to present a question to you: If a very large group of respected and accomplished pilots told you that three types of planes exhibited certain characteristics based on what they actually experienced in many thousands of combat engagements (with actual kills and gun camera footage to further support their points of view) and a programmer said that this wasn't true, who would you believe?

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper