PDA

View Full Version : dunno why; threads locked, yet 38 still porked



Daiichidoku
09-13-2006, 11:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2761038533/p/13


why was this thread ever locked?

isnt this thread a perfect example of just what ORR is, or should REALLY be about?

the P 38 is STILL porked...please fix it sometime in the next patch or 2, or 3, pretty please???

LEBillfish
09-14-2006, 12:27 AM
Porked?....as in rinds, chops, or lewd activities? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Or do you mean climb rates?.......

If climb rates are off hope they can fix them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
09-14-2006, 02:43 AM
You know, that IL2FB doesn't natively support 2-engined planes and we can be happy they implemented them at all? Not even DARING to speak about props rotating in opposite direction, etc.

It's not a question of patches - you can't get much closer with the current engine.

Dolemite-
09-14-2006, 03:53 AM
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/chander/archives/dejavucover504.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 08:47 AM
Maybe becasue Oleg answered with reasons why people think the P38 climb is wrong. In his opinion it is correct :-

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/573...611010453#6611010453 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933/r/6611010453#6611010453)


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

For all.

1) In USA used up to 3 types of calculations for standard athmosphere conditions. Using them in all cases will be different result and as more higher - more diffrent.

2) In 99% US sources which method used is unknown.

3) In trials say in Germany and UK for one the same aircraft used diferent calculations of the standard athmosphere. Its from where are different results.

4) etc.

5) It is known that in trials in SU and UK the declared manufacture performance of P-51B (in SU) and P-51D (in UK) wasn't confirmed.
I think its probably due to different methods of measurements and using different methods for calcualtion of standard atmospheric conditions.
I would ebven say that measurements for performace say P-39 and P-51 in US was different.... its why so different result in comparison with measurements in Russia for both aircraft.

6) However Measurement for Bf109s in SU and Germany are identical for most of them...


Think youself.

3 different methods of testing were used in the US P38 climb tests, each one will have different results. Which method is used in each test is unknown, so he could never get it right with these tests.



Result, it is not wrong in his opinion, it is correct , Case closed.

Kuna_
09-14-2006, 09:00 AM
Roger that Xi.
But perhaps I'm not that good in reading between the lines. Because I don't see the point where Oleg said that our current P-38 is correct. He said that the issue is foggy as far as I can see it.

Not only that, Oleg Maddox, in fact never said anything about P-38 specifically in that post.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 09:04 AM
I am not sure Kuna, I just found that in one of the threads. I really dont know much about the P38 myself.


I THINK he said that he used Russian and German data which matches, rather than the US data which has lots of different results along with no standard conditions (meaning its unusable).

I could be wrong tho.

As the last sentence says 'Think yourself' , its hard to say what he means. (maybe some clever soul can tell us)

It is apparantly already possible to exceed the real P38's climb rate in game, by not climbing at the real P38's best climb speed.

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
You know, that IL2FB doesn't natively support 2-engined planes and we can be happy they implemented them at all? Not even DARING to speak about props rotating in opposite direction, etc

You know, that the issue of the game engine not reproducing true torqueless flight from contra-props has absolutley NOTHING to do with climb rate? Not even DARING to speak about B(e) S(ure) compressability, stall speeds, and tail-boom DM bugs,too)

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2006, 09:38 AM
Great, so now we regurgitate a P38 rant here cos we aren`t happy with the answer we got?

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
Roger that Xi.
But perhaps I'm not that good in reading between the lines. Because I don't see the point where Oleg said that our current P-38 is correct. He said that the issue is foggy as far as I can see it.

Not only that, Oleg Maddox, in fact never said anything about P-38 specifically in that post.

this may also shed more light on the situation:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ostorder=asc&start=0 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9604&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Capt.LoneRanger
09-14-2006, 09:41 AM
Oh, it does.

If props could be modelled right, stall behaviour wouldn't have to be artificially scripted as it is, right now. It would also decrease compressability.
Same problem with the tai-boom-problem, as the very same problem with the one-engined fighters also corresponds with the one-fuselaged planes. Thus a realistic damage effect is directly depending on this.
Need I really to explain why better airflow over wings and fuselage also affect climb-rates, especially during maneuvers???

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Great, so now we regurgitate a P38 rant here cos we aren`t happy with the answer we got?

this thread itself is a rant;

the materiel in the linked threads is FAR from it, quite the opposite, infact, they comtain tons of testing, and info exchange, much better than most other threads around here

maybe if you take the time to actually READ those threads, you'd see that


btw....there was really any answer given...you'd also know THAT, too, if you read these threads

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

btw....there was really any answer given...you'd also know THAT, too, if you read these threads

Maybe you just didnt understand what he meant by 'Think [for] yourself'?

BUT : We have already been told that three will be no more fixes for flightmodels because Oleg is not even working on this game anymore. All his time is spent on SOW.

CHeck out Luthiers posts in the 'Is SOW closer than we think?' thread.

Sad but true. even if it is proved to be wrong, it wont be changed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

From Luthier :-

But unfortunately, there is just no time. We don't have 200 people. We do have large new projects, and we do have deadlines. Oleg has to finish BoB and make it the best it can be, and I have my own...thing... The teams are working inhuman hours without weekends as it is. There's just absolutely no way that we can add anything that's not already planned and signed off on.

This means: new ground objects; new vehicles; new ships; new versions of existing planes; cockpits for AI planes; changes to AI; CHANGES TO FM; new maps; or anything else you can think of.

I love the P38 nowadays, its my 2nd most flyed plane, and I would like to see it as right as possible. But beating a dead horse isnt going to make htings any better. Oleg answered, it hasnt changed, end of story.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-14-2006, 10:29 AM
No worries, Xiolablu3, most of us are more than thankfull for the ongoing and unparallel support for this game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

That even has nothing to do with fanboy-stuff - but say a single game that was improved over 7 years, most of the time with free addons?

At least I understand now, why that thread was locked. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
No worries, Xiolablu3, most of us are more than thankfull for the ongoing and unparallel support for this game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif



Hey Capt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,

I know no more than any of you guys, I just read various threads and pieced together what I could find.

Please dont take it as gospel, I have been known to be wrong, often http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

Scen
09-14-2006, 10:49 AM
Even when Oleg was presented with research and data that cost an individual money he refused to look at it and completely dismissed it as US propaganda.

This particular individual went out of his way to give several resources in order to back some of the claims made by real 38 pilots.

Needless to say this person no longer plays this game. A shame too considering he kicked some major booty with the 38.

The 38 we have in the game has some serious flaws in terms of modeling it's dive and turn performance. We have a flying brick that packs one hell of a punch for striking.

Yes some guys have a great time in it and they do fairly well but it's far from real world performance.

If you need data look at some of numerous threads. Also I can provide you some samples if you're really interested.

JG27.Capt_Stubing

Monty_Thrud
09-14-2006, 11:04 AM
All the threads are being locked...and to cap it all....DAN DAN DAAAA...the end of the world is NI!,NI!,NI!...i'm sorry, it appears i have a speech impeddleboat... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Monty_Thrud
09-14-2006, 11:13 AM
...erm...{meat}Turkey and {flower}Ambidextrous

Aaron_GT
09-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Even when Oleg was presented with research and data that cost an individual money he refused to look at it and completely dismissed it as US propaganda.

Oleg said that the problem with the US tests is that there is no definition of what standard temperature and pressure is, unlike tests by the UK, etc., where these are stated. So the US tests are from an unknown baseline, which is what the problem seems to be from Oleg's perspective. I.e. if there is no baseline in the US tests he can't set a baseline within the game to test against.

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 12:43 PM
it has been shown in the case of climb tests, USA uses a standard NACA procedure

Scen
09-14-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even when Oleg was presented with research and data that cost an individual money he refused to look at it and completely dismissed it as US propaganda.

Oleg said that the problem with the US tests is that there is no definition of what standard temperature and pressure is, unlike tests by the UK, etc., where these are stated. So the US tests are from an unknown baseline, which is what the problem seems to be from Oleg's perspective. I.e. if there is no baseline in the US tests he can't set a baseline within the game to test against. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong... Did you see what was presented?

I think not.

Also that wasn't the reason he blew it off. As I stated above his reasoning then was it was based upon US propaganda. It was completely disregarded even with actual accounts from real 38 pilots.

Some of the data came from Lockheed and compared with other tests. Even if he interpolated the data from other data we would have a very different 38 than we have in the game. The diving chart from the manual it's self points out a major flaw in the dive performance we have from the game.

Bottom line is it's wrong.

JtD
09-14-2006, 01:16 PM
What exactly makes the P-38 more porked than other planes in FB?

Aaron_GT
09-14-2006, 01:17 PM
Wrong... Did you see what was presented?

I was talking about the quote from Oleg earlier, not a response to a private email.


Also that wasn't the reason he blew it off. As I stated above his reasoning then was it was based upon US propaganda.

I've emailed Oleg and received replies many times and he's never been anything less than polite. Maybe you caught him on a bad day? I can't say for certain, of course, but it seems unusual.

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
What exactly makes the P-38 more porked than other planes in FB?

stall speeds at least 20 mph too high, ROC much, much lower than RL, stability when firing guns leaves a lot to be desired, for a 16,000lbs+ plane, ive heard turn rates are off, though i dont know abotu that...and the whole compressability is JOKE...both the fact that only the P 38 (and the B1 rocket, admittedly) suffer from it, and the fact that the compress modelling the 38 does have is completely out of whack with RL

Scen
09-14-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
What exactly makes the P-38 more porked than other planes in FB?

I don't know that it's more porked than others but certainly others have gotten more attention than the 38

Scen
09-14-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
What exactly makes the P-38 more porked than other planes in FB?

stall speeds at least 20 mph too high, ROC much, much lower than RL, stability when firing guns leaves a lot to be desired, for a 16,000lbs+ plane, ive heard turn rates are off, though i dont know abotu that...and the whole compressability is JOKE...both the fact that only the P 38 (and the B1 rocket, admittedly) suffer from it, and the fact that the compress modelling the 38 does have is completely out of whack with RL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to add to it... According to the Dive Limit chart for the P-38L with Dive Recovery Flaps you could pull 4+ Gs at 420mph without any issues afterwards you would need to deploy the DRF.

Try doing that in game and see what happens...


Straight from the manual...

/. DIVE RECOVERY FLAPS.€"P-38L and Later P38J airplanes are provided with dive recovery flaps to improve the dive recovery characteristics of the airplane. As described above, the airplane without these flaps becomes very nose heavy and starts to buffet above placard dive speeds. This condition is caused by a high speed stall and a consequent decrease in lift in the wing producing the nose heavy condition. The dive recovery flaps which are installed under the wings between the booms and the ailerons, restore the lift to this portion of the wing and thus cause the uncontrollable nose heaviness to occur at a higher speed. The flaps also add some drag to the airplane, which in conjunction with the higher allowable dive speed, permits safe dives at a much steeper diving angle. The dive recovery flaps should be extended before starting the dive or immediately after the dive has started before a buffeting speed has been reached. If the airplane is buffeting before the dive recovery flaps are extended, the buffeting will momentarily increase and then diminish. With these flaps extended, the nose heaviness is definitely reduced but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed the placard by more than 15 or 20 mph. With the dive recovery flaps extended before entering the dive, angles of dive up to 45? may be safely accomplished. Without dive recovery flaps extended, the maximum angle for extended dives is 15?. Diving characteristics are better with power off than with power on.

This is how it worked in real life. The game is nothing like this.

Hawgdog
09-14-2006, 04:09 PM
I wish they'd put the fire extinquisher back on the P-38.
Maybe add one to the Zeros as well.

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Hawgdog:
I wish they'd put the fire extinquisher back on the P-38.
Maybe add one to the Zeros as well.

im not sure about the 38, HD....but yes, the A6M5b need an ext.....oh, and its missing a 7.7mm cowl gun

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html)

"The A6M5b Model 52B originated as a private venture jointly developed by Mitsubishi and Dai-Ichi Kaigun Kokusho to carry additional armament and to provide some fire protection for the fuel tanks and some armor protection for the pilot. Armored glass was provided for the windshield, which consisted of two layers of plastic mounted between glass outer-sections. The total armored windshield was two inches thick. The fuel tanks were provided with automatic CO2-type fire extinguishers."

but this is NOT the thread for zeros http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 04:24 PM
Scen, you may wish to look at this:

http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue1.htm

pay close attention to issue (page)2:

"The '38 is a pilot's dream-come-true when it comes to the stall characteristics. They are unusually good and-although not generally used-are worthwhile investigating so that in an emergency you will know what performance to expect from your ship. We have discovered that the power stall occurs at about 70 M.P.H. with about a 50-foot loss of altitude. The counter rotating propellers eliminate torque and there is no tendency for either wing to dip or fall away.

You will find "she" is just as steady in a power off stall with gear and flaps retracted or extended.One of the finest characteristics of the '38 is the accelerated stall. Such stalls, accompanied by normal buffeting, occur on any ship when the angle of attack is increased to the point that the airflow over the wing becomes turbulent.

As you know, this can happen in sharp turns, pull-outs or other severe maneuvers. The '38 is designed to take the buffeting of the stall and has no tendency to fall off on either wing at any altitude. If combat necessitates, you can hold it in the accelerated stall as long as you can take the buffeting -- the ship will take it much longer. To get out of an accelerated stall immediately, ease up on the stick, permitting the airflow to reestablish normal lift."

if ANY of the above sounds even remotely like the FB P 38, all id have to say is :
GOT TRACK? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


what we get in game, instead, is a ridiculous, crazy somersault flip at high AoA and low speed...and a stall that occurs at least 20 mph too soon

Frequent_Flyer
09-14-2006, 06:20 PM
Daiichidoku

I noticed that is all the usuall suspects that are always telling the community that there is nothing wrong with the way any of the USAAF/USN planes are modelled. In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here. this will then degenerate into how the Spit is Gods gift to the aeronautical engineering. Than if Germany was'nt bombed into submission the would have wipe the skys clear with ony four Me 262's Blah,Blah............

HayateAce
09-14-2006, 06:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Brain32
09-14-2006, 06:39 PM
Daiichidoku didn't anybody tell you? The in-game P38 is a derated JABO Eastern front version http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Daiichidoku

I noticed that is all the usuall suspects that are always telling the community that there is nothing wrong with the way any of the USAAF/USN planes are modelled. In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here. this will then degenerate into how the Spit is Gods gift to the aeronautical engineering. Than if Germany was'nt bombed into submission the would have wipe the skys clear with ony four Me 262's Blah,Blah............

Ditto for the 'US planes were gods gift to aviation' usual suspects I am afraid.


Spitfire is undermodelled too, the Spit Vb has a 9lbs boost top speed, with a 16lbs boost climb.

Fw190A turn time is far too high.

Russian planes break up at ridiculoiusly low speeds.

Tempest overheat is ridiculous compared to other planes.

Mosquito is incredibly weak in damagemodel

Bf109 controls turn to cement at over 450k.


ALL planes are off in some areas, its not a conspiracy against US planes. Just put up with it and do the best you can with the tools you have. Try not to whine too loudly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont see any 30 page threads about how the overheat is very high on the Tempest and its 'p0rked'. Just people saying 'I hope this could be fixed one day, but we wont lose sleep over it'.

BTW not saying the P38 climb rate is correct or not, I simply dont know.

Frequent_Flyer
09-14-2006, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Daiichidoku

I noticed that is all the usuall suspects that are always telling the community that there is nothing wrong with the way any of the USAAF/USN planes are modelled. In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here. this will then degenerate into how the Spit is Gods gift to the aeronautical engineering. Than if Germany was'nt bombed into submission the would have wipe the skys clear with ony four Me 262's Blah,Blah............

Ditto for the 'US planes were gods gift to aviation' usual suspects I am afraid.


Spitfire is undermodelled too, the Spit Vb has a 9lbs boost top speed, with a 16lbs boost climb.

Fw190A turn time is far too high.

Russian planes break up at ridiculoiusly low speeds.

Tempest overheat is ridiculous compared to other planes.

Mosquito is incredibly weak in damagemodel

Bf109 controls turn to cement at over 450k.


ALL planes are off in some areas, its not a conspiracy against US planes. Just put up with it and do the best you can with the tools you have. Try not to whine too loudly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont see any 30 page threads about how the overheat is very high on the Tempest and its 'p0rked'. Just people saying 'I hope this could be fixed one day, but we wont lose sleep over it'.

BTW not saying the P38 climb rate is correct or not, I simply dont know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Show me the whine. Not a single drop in my post. I was just pointing out the "usual suspects "in every thread that constructivly points out the inaccurate flight model is always met by the same group telling the auther of the thread" there is nothing wrong with the USAAF/USN planes" Furthermore, This thread is about the P-38 not the other lesser aircraft.

Daiichidoku
09-14-2006, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here.

got my chart for them right here



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
This thread is about the P-38 not the other lesser aircraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif 'Nuff said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


I wish the Corsair didnt wobble so much, thats my main 'gripe' with the US planes right now.

Some say its fine for them, but for me its so hard to keep the guns on target with all the wobbling. Any slight input means the nose wobbles around. I know its a big heavy plane, but I dont htink its hould be quite so unstable. Same with the P51. All other planes are pretty much fine.

I usually use the 'Cats' instead of these 2 and love that plane, 50's are really powerful becasue the nose is steady meaning a lot of lead on the target. I was taking down 109's/Stukas and Me110 easily with the 50's on the WildCat the other day.

Scen
09-15-2006, 10:51 AM
Daiichidoku

Yeah there's lots of work to be done to correct some of the listed issues. Instead they are working on adding new content with the 2 addons. Personally I think it's somewhat of a distraction from all these issues.

Hey look at the shinny object kinda of approach. Oh by the way I would gladly pay for fixes if that's the main complaint but we've been so distracted with new content.

I like new planes, objects and maps but it doesn't address some of the more annoying things that have plagued the sim for some time.

JtD
09-15-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
What exactly makes the P-38 more porked than other planes in FB?

Some stuff... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if you like somersaults, it's not more porked than other planes.

BfHeFwMe
09-15-2006, 07:05 PM
First off to the guys claiming the US had no SMOE in evaluating aircraft performance. The term SMOE meaning Standard Means Of Equivalency, a US coined acronym by the way, is used world wide.

Ever wonder how the conditions of pressure, tempurature, and altitude were derived? Did they simply pull them out if a hat and decide to use 29.92, 58 degrees F, and sealevel? No way, these were the average day conditions year round for San Fransico where the whole concept of testing was pioneered. It was simply the most consistant place to do testing under simular daily conditions way back during the cradle of aviation.

To suggest there was no SMOE in the US is laughable in the extreme. Only the alien abduction crowd could seriously believe such rubbish.

Now my chirp for the 38, the flaps are FUBAR beyond acceptable. Combat flap was half flap, and it was rated at 250 mph. You drop them above 170 to half and they jam. That over 30% error, the fix would take 1 minute. That in itself robs the 38 of any chance in a manouver battle at slower speeds, they historically used combat flap heavily, it even had a high speed dedicated hydrolic system.

No one ever bothered to consult a manual, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Frequent_Flyer
09-15-2006, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here.

got my chart for them right here



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't argue that is porked. However, I need to know your sources, and was that a captured pig in good running order. What octane of feed was use to obtain your purported results http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fork-N-spoon
09-15-2006, 07:48 PM
Scen, With regards to the dive limitations in the pilot's manual I would like to add some more data. Tony LeVier stated in his book, with the aid of dive recovery flaps he could safely maintain 60-degree dive angles from 35,000 feet down to sea level. He also stated that the aircraft could safely achieve mach .71 while doing this. An interesting note on his test aircraft, the Army Air Corps thought Lockheed was progressing with it's tests a bit too slowly so they had them add weight to the P-38 until its gross weight was 2,000lbs heavier than a normal Lightning. I€ve read in several publications that the P-38 entered compressibility without the dive recovery flaps at mach .68 and that at mach .74 the pilot could no longer keep the aircraft from tucking under. In this game without dive recovery flaps, as soon as you get near mach .68, the Lighting loses control. Hence, the onset of compressibility for the P-38 is much lower than mach .68 in this game.

As far as turn rates are concerned and aside from anecdotal evidence, we€ve the Eglin field test of the P-63 vs. the P-38. Apparently with the aid of combat flaps the P-38 and P-63 had very similar rates of turn. Somebody not I supplied some data that the P-38 had a 50 something mph stall speed with power on, gear and full flaps down. That€s incredibly low and I€ve often wondered at what weight it was achieved. In Jeff Ethell€s video, he states that at 15,000 lb gross weight the P-38 stalls at 70 mph with the power off and half flaps extended. That should give some clue as to what the P-38 should be able to do in a turn at low to medium speeds.

Are other aircraft in this game off? I€m quite sure that they are, however this thread is about the P-38 not another aircraft. If somebody doesn€t like the way a certain aircraft performs and thinks that a mistake has been made it€s up to them to do the research, testing, and data gathering.

The original thread wasn€t a whine. It was the result of a lot of data collection and testing done by well over a dozen people. Daiichidoku and I were talking the other night about the testing several of us had done. We further wondered what had happened and what Oleg's response was to Tagert. You see it was Tagert that forwarded all our data to the proper people. Tagert also had done quite a bit of testing as well.

LStarosta
09-15-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
In a few moments the "you show me a chart" crowd will be here.

got my chart for them right here



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't argue that is porked. However, I need to know your sources, and was that a captured pig in good running order. What octane of feed was use to obtain your purported results http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that was a pen!s at first.

I didn't do well in my anatomy and physiology class.

Scen
09-16-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
First off to the guys claiming the US had no SMOE in evaluating aircraft performance. The term SMOE meaning Standard Means Of Equivalency, a US coined acronym by the way, is used world wide.

Ever wonder how the conditions of pressure, tempurature, and altitude were derived? Did they simply pull them out if a hat and decide to use 29.92, 58 degrees F, and sealevel? No way, these were the average day conditions year round for San Fransico where the whole concept of testing was pioneered. It was simply the most consistant place to do testing under simular daily conditions way back during the cradle of aviation.

To suggest there was no SMOE in the US is laughable in the extreme. Only the alien abduction crowd could seriously believe such rubbish.

Now my chirp for the 38, the flaps are FUBAR beyond acceptable. Combat flap was half flap, and it was rated at 250 mph. You drop them above 170 to half and they jam. That over 30% error, the fix would take 1 minute. That in itself robs the 38 of any chance in a manouver battle at slower speeds, they historically used combat flap heavily, it even had a high speed dedicated hydrolic system.

No one ever bothered to consult a manual, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

p1ngu666
09-16-2006, 07:43 PM
flap jam speed is same on all aircraft, and u cant jam combat flap http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BigKahuna_GS
09-17-2006, 01:35 PM
Lone Ranger--It's not a question of patches - you can't get much closer with the current engine.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


As said before what has this got to do with correct climb rates for any aircraft in IL2 let alone the P38 ?

What has this got to do with a premature onset of compressibilty starting at 360mph IAS below 10,00ft ? What has this got to do with incorrect stall speeds ? Absolutly nothing.

Just so you know the US does use SMOE. The P38J had it's climb rate increased marginally 2 patches ago. It is still under spec. Oleg had a one time recieved data from japan that claimed the Zero had 3 times the roll rate than the NACA charts. That meant the Zero became the fastest rolling prop aircraft of WW2 and of IL2 at 400mph - 3.5sec. Does this go against everything you have read from japanese fighter pilots, allied fighter pilots, historical tests and actual WW2 Zeros that still fly today ? Yes.

My point is this that sometimes mistakes are made or there is confusion about flight test results and how to apply them in flgiht models in IL2. There is no conspiracy against US aircraft and Oleg tries to be fair to all. Oleg is a good guy. There is sometimes a language barrier that causes some confusion. To be honest though I still do not understand why Oleg left out the best Brit/US late war fighters while the russian and german late war fighters are there. Planes like the Spit14, 11 or 13lb boost Tempest with much greater speed, P47M, P47N, F4U-4, and a mid-late 44' Mustang P51D with 81Hg operating on grade 150 fuel. That would be fair when competing against high boost late war german aircraft.

I realize that many aircraft in IL2 have a problem(s). This is not a rant to me but a discussion of what needs to be corrected. The problems with the P38 is that it is not just one problem but a combination of problems--wrong climb rate, wrong stall speed, wrong stall behavior, heavily modeled compression at way too early in speed. These combined greatly reduce the fighting strength of the P38. If it is a single problem you can learn to live with it but all of these together ?

Here are the correct P-38 stall speeds :

From testing the IL2 P-38J, P-38L, P38L Late as compared to the official USAAF P-38
Pilot's Manual and Official USAAF P-38 stall speed tests you can see that the IL2 P-38 stall speeds are 15-20mph too high. According to USAAF Flight Tests <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The aircraft (P-38) is difficult to stall with power on and will approach almost a vertical position before stalling." </span> At high AoA/turns there is a tendency for all models of IL2 P38s to want to roll onto their back. The IL2 P38L & P38L Late are particularly unstable during high AoA maneuvers with a very heavy tendency to drop a wing and tumble into a spin at low speeds with partial/full flaps. From early to late model P-38 power on stall speeds were very low and stall characteristics very gentle even during high AoA maneuvers. There was no tendency to roll onto their back, harshly drop a wing or tumble into a spin. Stall usually meant mushing forward, recovery was quick and easy.

P-38J take-off weight of 16,597 lb http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38-67869.html

Official USAAF Flight Test

G. Stalling Characteristics
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In either power on or power off stalls with flaps and landing gear up the airplane stalls straight forward in a well controlled stall</span>. With flaps and gear down there is a slight tendency for a wing to drop, but there is no tendecy to spin. Ailerons remain effective giving adequate control throughout the stall. Warning of the approaching stall is given by a noticable buffeting and shaking of the airplane and controls. See Part IV F. for stalling speeds for different configurations.

F. Stalling Speeds


Position of Landing gear--Position of Flaps--Indicated airspeed
---------------------------------------------Corrected for instrument error
---------------------------------------------Power Off---Power on*
-----------Up-----------------Up-------------99.0---74
-----------Down---------------Up----------------95.0-----------73
-----------Down---------------Down-----------78.0----53
*Power on was at 54" Hg manifold pressure and 3000 rpm
(stalled at 78mph flaps down Power-Off)
(stalled at 53mph flaps down Power-On)

VIII Conclusions

It is concluded that the performance reported is representative of the P-38J airplane, as the subject airplane was flown at combat weight and was also selected at random from P-38J airplanes delivered from the factory.

IX Recommendations

It is recommended that this method of selection of airplanes for flight test be adopted, and that hereafter all airplanes be test flown at the specified combat weight.

X General Dimension and Photographs

A. P-38J Dimensions


Span-------52'--0"
Length-----37'--10"
Height-----12'--10"
Tread------16'--6"
Wing Area--328 sq. ft

P-38J at 17,363lbs http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38-28392.html

III Condition of Aircraft Relative to Tests

a. All tests were flown at a gross weight at take-off of 17,363 lbs. with the c.g. at 26.72% MAC, gear up, and 23.86% MAC gear down. This weight which corresponds to the combat weight of the airplane included 416 gallons of gasoline, full oil, 457.5 lbs. of ballst for 1500 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, and 200 lbs. for the pilot.

e. Stalling Speeds

Gear position-------Flaps----Manifold Pressure----RPM----IAS, MPH
Up-------------------Up--------Power-Off---------------------97.5
Down-----------------Up--------Power-Off---------------------99.5
Up-------------------Down------Power-Off---------------------86.0 **stall speed
Down-----------------Down------Power-Off---------------------80.5
Up-------------------Up--------33.0" Hg.----------2400-------90.5
Down-----------------Up--------33.0" Hg.----------2400-------94.0
Up-------------------Down------33.0" Hg.----------2400-------65.0 **stall speed
Down-----------------Down------33.0" Hg.----------2400-------60.0
(stalled at 86mph flaps down Power-Off)
(stalled at 65mph flaps down with 33"Hg per engine & 2400rpm Power-On)

(note the power difference used between test 54Hg & 5000rpm vs 33Hg & 2400rpm)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38g-tactical-trials.html

5. Record of Test
6.Discussion
a. Performance
(7) At twenty-five thousand (25,000) feet the P-38G stalled in a turn at an IAS of about 110mph with manuver flaps extended. The P-38F stalled at about 145mph IAS.

5. Stalling Speeds, gross weight 13,360 pounds.
Wheels and flaps---
Up--b.h.p.per---------engine off (power off) calibrated speed MPH 92 --RPM 0
Up--b.h.p.per---------engine 500--------------Cal speed--------MPH 82--RPM 2000
Up--b.h.p.per---------engine 800--------------Cal speed--------MPH 80--RPM 2280
Down--b.h.p.----------per engine Off----------Cal speed--------MPH 71--RPM 0
Down--b.h.p.----------per engine 505----------Cal speed--------MPH 58--RPM 2000
Down--b.h.p.----------per engine 810----------Cal speed--------MPH 56--RPM 2280
(stalled at 71mph flaps down Power-Off)
(stalled at 56mph with 810horsepower per engine)
(stalled at 58mph with 505horsepower per engine)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38f-tactical-trials.html

b. Flying Characteristics

(1) Due to tail buffeting the maximum allowable dive speed is (400) miles per hour indicated air speed at sea level, which is not as great as desired. This decreses with altitude, and the pilots should be familar with limitations. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The aircraft is difficult to stall with power on and will approach almost a vertical position before stalling. In a power-off stall. the aircraft falls forward and recovers easily.</span> Due to restriction, no spins were attempted.

waffen-79
09-17-2006, 01:40 PM
Try the P-38L (Late model) that one shot me down a couple of times

BigKahuna_GS
09-17-2006, 01:58 PM
Try the P-38L (Late model) that one shot me down a couple of times

?

We are talking about all models of P38 having the wrong stall speed, stall behavior & compression. Read the post.

JtD
09-17-2006, 01:58 PM
Can you please enlighten me what you think the stall speeds in FB are, how you define stall in FB and how you measure it? How do you know how heavy our P-38 is anyway?

Fact is, power off level flight I can't get the 38 to stall at all.

BigKahuna_GS
09-17-2006, 02:21 PM
Can you please enlighten me what you think the stall speeds in FB are, how you define stall in FB and how you measure it? How do you know how heavy our P-38 is anyway?

Fact is, power off level flight I can't get the 38 to stall at all.


The P38 weights are close to those in this report for the P38J (P-38J take-off weight of 16,597lb) This weight was used for the climb test and the P38L/L Late would proabaly be close to (17,363lbs +) proabably 17,500lbs. It is not how I define stalls in IL2 but rather how Oleg and his chief beta tester do.

Depending on what you are trying to do you could say you cant stall any aircraft with slots or that the 109F-4 and 109G-2 cant stall. I will have to dig out the email but from what I remember the way they tested was to maintain altitude as much as possible in a Power-Off stall test until the nose of the aircaft could no longer be controlled or diping a wing as the AoA got steeper and steeper. If you just allow the aircraft to sink you would never stall it, you could ride the sink rate all the way to the ground.

p1ngu666
09-17-2006, 03:42 PM
il2compair gives takeoff weight as 8197.19kg for the L and late, 8012.74kg for the J.

btw the russians have latewar la7, and yak3 i think, but the yak9u, and the ut are based on the first lot of yak9u's, later ones where better...

Aaron_GT
09-17-2006, 04:19 PM
To be honest though I still do not understand why Oleg left out the best Brit/US late war fighters while the russian and german late war fighters are there. Planes like the Spit14, 11 or 13lb boost Tempest with much greater speed,


I'd heard the XIV was left out because the model submitted was not good enough. If the VIII model could be released I am sure a modeller could turn it into an XIV, though. The lack of +11 Tempest is a bit odd, though, as is the presence of rocket racks on it, which shouldn't be there. +13 was unusual, so fair enough. The lack of higher boost versions of the Mosquito VI is disappointing too, and there are plenty of performance figures available.

F6_Ace
09-17-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To be honest though I still do not understand why Oleg left out the best Brit/US late war fighters while the russian and german late war fighters are there. Planes like the Spit14, 11 or 13lb boost Tempest with much greater speed,


I'd heard the XIV was left out because the model submitted was not good enough. If the VIII model could be released I am sure a modeller could turn it into an XIV, though. The lack of +11 Tempest is a bit odd, though, as is the presence of rocket racks on it, which shouldn't be there. +13 was unusual, so fair enough. The lack of higher boost versions of the Mosquito VI is disappointing too, and there are plenty of performance figures available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tbh, there are quite a few issues with the recently added Spitfires so why should the XIV be singled out for being poor? i.e. Missing nose on one and wings that disappear at certain distances with another (Seafire). What was wrong with the XIV? Missing wings, fuselage and tail?

I haven't heard anyone moaning about the tail boom falling off the P38 recently, nor has it come off any time I've flown it of late. Did it get secretly fixed at some point or was it never actually wrong in the first place?

Fork-N-spoon
09-17-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Can you please enlighten me what you think the stall speeds in FB are, how you define stall in FB and how you measure it? How do you know how heavy our P-38 is anyway?

Fact is, power off level flight I can't get the 38 to stall at all.

To be honest, I haven't tested the stall speed of the P-38 lately. It is however very easy to measure by turning off the cockpit and using the HUD display. The last I remember it was at least 30 €" 40 mph too high in a 1 g stall. This doesn€t even get into the stall characteristics. I am not for a second buying €œlimitations of the game€s engine.€ There are other twin engine aircraft in the game, some of which also have zero torque and P-factor, yet not one has the €œflip on its back and cartwheel like a cheerleader€ stall characteristics.

How do we know the weight? We are going to have to assume that Oleg has used the correct weights for an aircraft full of fuel, ammunition, and oil. If he has, then it€s simple mathematics. We know how much ammunition and fuel the P-38 carried and we know how much each unit weighed. To match the wartime tests all one has to do is subtract fuel or ammunition to duplicate the wartime test weights. Our current P-38 doesn€t even match the rates of climb at full take off weight. Well over a dozen people tested the P-38 and contributed a lot of data. If you have read through the original post that Daiichidoku brought back up, you would realize that this topic has not only been well researched, but also well tested. I understand that reading through it can take a while and your interests on this subject might make the matter a bit of a bore, but it€s already there if you care to read or re-read through it.

Lastly, if you cannot get the P-38 to stall with power off, I would suggest you try again. It's the power on spin that is the crux of the problem. I mean really, how many people go around trying to out turn or out loop another aircraft with the power off?

JtD
09-18-2006, 09:32 AM
I sure can get the 38 in a stall at power off, just not in level flight. It doesn't have enough elevator authority at low speed with power off to keep it level. The nose goes down and it picks up speed before I stall. The slowest I can get is about 80mph.