PDA

View Full Version : for the p-38 flyers.



fordfan25
01-02-2006, 02:10 PM
if you dont regulerly fly the p-38 please dont awser as i dont want this to turn ugly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

iv noticed the p-38 has taken a pretty ugly reduction in its abilty to turn fight sence the last patch. it has a very bad tendency to flip over when in a tight turn that i had not experinced pre 4.02m. im asking if any of you others have noticed this as well. and what do you think of it. seems it stalls alot more now also.

Tooz_69GIAP
01-02-2006, 02:15 PM
Riding the stall has become far more touchy. Also, looping is a problem. At the top, even if you have a decent amount of speed, it just kinda wobbles and flops around, and kind slides over the top, and takes a couple of seconds to get it back under control.

But, it flies dead straight, and doesn't rock all over the place when firing, so that's a plus for me, definately!

fordfan25
01-02-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Riding the stall has become far more touchy. Also, looping is a problem. At the top, even if you have a decent amount of speed, it just kinda wobbles and flops around, and kind slides over the top, and takes a couple of seconds to get it back under control.

But, it flies dead straight, and doesn't rock all over the place when firing, so that's a plus for me, definately!

yea that acured to me as well. much steader than the wooblstang or the tederbolt

ICDP
01-02-2006, 02:39 PM
It has indeed taken a big step back in turnrate. In 4.01 it could hang very well with most fighters at speeds of 130-140mph. It now feels slightly heavier in 4.02. I am not saying that 4.02 is wrong, just confriming it is definately different.

From what I gather it could turn extremely well in real life at low speed.

BSS_CUDA
01-02-2006, 03:30 PM
you used to be able to turn with the 109G's but not anymore. the G6/AS will eat you for lunch and is 20 MPH faster than you down low.
maintain a head of steam if your going to loop. if you dont you'll start somersaulting 4-5 times,
its also much easier to snap spin in a hard turn (torque?)
if you do manage to flat spin which I have done twice, its back to the 3.04 where its unrecoverable.

cygfrain
01-02-2006, 04:01 PM
Tail seems very vunerable too, doesn't seem to take much to deprive you of your boom/s and tail assembly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

fordfan25
01-02-2006, 05:26 PM
yea thats what i was thinking. i used to be able to out turn stangs,sairs ect with ease but now its very tough. this is one thing i noticed in patch 4.01 you could fly the 38 cut power and pull all the way back on the stick and it would not snap stall. now it will and fast. i knew it had been very reduced but i wanted to see if others noticed. when i borought up the subject right after 4.02m i was told by most that nothing changed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif im woundering why it got such a sand baging http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Brain32
01-02-2006, 05:29 PM
Just had a very interesting flight with P38, it definitely feels strange(heavy - like I'm flying a Sherman tank), the tail DM bug is VERY annoying, the plane's turn rate seemed better in 4.01. It climbs good and it's a stable gunnery platfom but all in all I'm a bit dissapointed...

slo123
01-02-2006, 09:34 PM
yea i say it stalls pretty easy to and i can attack fighters after a head on pass cause they all out turn me so i just use to take down bombers and do bombing runs

Hristo_
01-02-2006, 11:33 PM
Well, P-38 does have the highest wingloading of all US fighters modeled. Why is anyone advocating stallfighting in it is beyond me.

In fact, its wingloading is highest of any fighter modeled, except maybe Me 262. Higher than that of Fw 190A, just to remind you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Even some bombers have lower wingloading.

P-38 may benefit of its flaps and two props, but overall, it was conceived as an interceptor, not a stallfighter.

Expecting it to outturn anything better than poor turners and groundpounders is, well, rather optimistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
01-03-2006, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Well, P-38 does have the highest wingloading of all US fighters modeled. Why is anyone advocating stallfighting in it is beyond me.


There is more then wingloading. P-38 also has one of the lowest stall speed of any WWII fighter besides the Zero. That includes the FW-190 AND the 109.

Hristo_
01-03-2006, 12:31 AM
Lowest stall speed despite the wingloading, not thanks to it. Mainly because of counter-rotating props.

Wingloading is the main factor in sustained turning. There are other factors too, but none of them as significant.

Gibbage1
01-03-2006, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Lowest stall speed despite the wingloading, not thanks to it. Mainly because of counter-rotating props.

Wingloading is the main factor in sustained turning. There are other factors too, but none of them as significant.

Like wing configuration and profile, and COG loading? Heh. Those two have just as much to do with turning as wing loading. Not every wing is equal. The P-38's wing had a high lift profile.

There are many factors of the P-38's design that allowed it low speed handling. The position of the flaps is one. 100% of the flaps surface was behind the prop and effected by propwash. To say turn speed was all in wing loading is rather ignorant.

Hristo_
01-03-2006, 01:25 AM
To my knowledge Me 109G also has a high lift profile wing. And about 30% lower wingloading. And favorable powerloading.

Expecting a P38 to outturn it in any form of sustained maneuvering is rather optimistic.

BSS_CUDA
01-03-2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
To my knowledge Me 109G also has a high lift profile wing. And about 30% lower wingloading. And favorable powerloading.

Expecting a P38 to outturn it in any form of sustained maneuvering is rather optimistic.

interesting that a plane with such a low wing loading would have a higher stall speed than a plane that was over twice its weight fully loaded.

109 stall speed with full flaps was 75 MPH
38 stall speed with full flaps was 69 MPH

now this doesnt take into effect the P factor which would snap that 109 like a top in a split second while the 38 had no P factor problems.
so it would seem to me that expecting the 109 to out turn it in any form of sustained manuevering is rather opimistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

just a little insight on why the 38's wing was so good Hristo.


To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading
(gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower).
The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as
when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off
record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had
unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US
design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading
would remain constant to very high altitudes.
This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally
degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38
should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other
factors.
One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the
length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading
(ratio of airplane weight to wingspan).
In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,
increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For
structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or
less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain
the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in
maneuverability, climb or ceiling.
A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because
the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making
the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this.
Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being
only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3.
So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and
good roller.
But wait--there's more:
Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines
need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited
by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their
width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent
aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line
being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power.
But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own
propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered
airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of
the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized
throughout the maneuver range.
This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on
take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer.
Pretty neat, huh?
But wait--there's more:
Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane.
Not bad, huh?
But wait--there's more:
The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the
booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The
endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the
booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This
had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in
the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb
damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that
there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without
degradation of flying characteristics.
Like, wow, man!
But wait--there's more:
The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord
elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for
the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the
airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the
latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any
other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with.
Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical
slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus
reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in
speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight.
Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area,
tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy
cockpit....
The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other
planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets
or lap joints, for example.
One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning
large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant
high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later
models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when
they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups.

GuNzABlaZiN
01-03-2006, 08:25 AM
The P-38 definately goes into a spin easier in 4.02 than it did in 4.01.

Brain32
01-03-2006, 10:11 AM
The roll rate is also very bad(it feels like B25), I think this maybe related to turning problems, as I don't feel P38 turns badly, it's entering in a turn that bothers me, once you're in a turn it keep's going but by then your oponennt went too far to be outturned.
Target proved all roll rates are FUBARed in 4.xx versions in the game: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6241061473/p/1
If we get that fixed maybe some strange things will disappear...