PDA

View Full Version : P38 turns with a Spitfire!! ...(and P47)



Blackdog5555
03-03-2005, 09:44 PM
So what, it was a Griffon engine...it was a only a P38H!...just an exerpt of a famous mock battle.
quote.../////
"During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."

The P38 was great withthe "accellerated stall"

here is a web post about Neel Kearby of the 348th:
quote:
"Correct name = Neel Kearby. A very likeable guy. Commanded newly formed
348FG in July 1943, equipped with P-47s based at Dobodura. Parked at
northeast side of the field just east of "Warhawk Row" where the P-40s of
49FG were parked. Nobody at 49FG had seen P-47s before and were astounded
by these huge machines. Tails were painted white so they would not be
mistaken for Zeros and Oscars by 49FG boys. Some rear echelon guy thought
that up because no way could anyone mistake a beautiful Oscar or Zero for
the Republic beast. 49FG 9FS P-38 crew chiefs wandered over to look at
the P-47s and were struck dumb by the vast complexity of their elaborate
turbocharged engine plumbing. Everybody was awestruck by P-47's
firepower--eight .50s with 425 rpg. Lots of nails. 348FG took over
standing patrols of the Oro Bay area, freeing P-40s for tactical missions
over Salamaua and Lae.
On Aug. 11, 348FG P-47s patroling Oro Bay were mistaken for Japanese
planes by 49FG 9FS P-38 pilots (so they said; hard to believe). They
bounced them and scattered them six ways from Sunday, while howls of glee
and malevolent laughter were heard over the radio. A series of individual
dogfights broke out between the P-47s and P-38s (nobody exchanged a shot).
End result was that the P-47s couldn't get on the tail of a single P-38
and the P-38s could not be shaken off by the P-47s. Dogfight began at
20,000 ft and went down to wave-top height. An example of the rough fun
of figter pilots. Capt. Johnson of 9FS gave Maj. Kearby two bottles of
gin after landing to calm him down. He was hot and wanted to punch
somebody out, but a few shots of gin mellowed him out. He finally allowed
as how he was glad "the God-****ed Japs aren't flying P-38s."

Love the P38 Lightning//cheers

Sturmvogel66
03-03-2005, 10:09 PM
lmao... good story

Waldo.Pepper
03-03-2005, 10:58 PM
Sweet!

Please what are the references?

Gibbage1
03-03-2005, 11:28 PM
Ya. P-38. Not a good fighter.... At least in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hendley
03-04-2005, 05:31 AM
Oh okay, I'll bite. Offered in the same spirit as the original post, from Night Fighter by CF Rawnsley and Robert Wright:

"The trouble came to a head after an American test pilot had been on a visit to the aerodrome and had given a snorting display of acrobatics. Rather carried away by national pride, some of the American pilots mad a boast in the Mess that night about the relative merits of the Lightning and the Spitfire. It was a foolish thing to do. The Lightning was a fine aircraft and it was doing a first-class job of work, but it could scarcely be expected to out-turn a single-engined interceptor like the Spitfire. But the challenge had been made.

"The next morning, the entire staff of the station was out watching the two aircraft as they took off and climbed into position. Cautiously they circled for a while; and then they turned in and rushed at each other. As we expected, within a few seconds the Spitfire was sitting firmly on the tail of the Lightning. The American pilot put on a magnificant show and did everything but turn his aircraft inside out; but nothing he could do could shake off the tenacious Spitfire. Finally, the twin-engined Lightning broke off the match and came spiralling in to land. On the approach, the American pilot feathered one of his propellers and came in on one engine, as if to say to the pilot of the Spitfire: "There's something you can't do!"

"But the British pilot was not to be outdone, As he continued his circuit around the aerodrome he rolled over on to his back and flicked his wheels out into the landing position. Still upside down he turned to make his final approach to land. At the last moment he neatly rolled back into the normal position just in time to make a faultless touch-down. Harmony and a blissfull silence was restored to the Mess."

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 08:07 AM
I'd wager its doable in this game...the P-38 pilot has to know his plane in and out and be able to ride stalls with the rudder.

I had a few stall fights with a 109G-2 at lower altitudes in a P-38J. I won. The dropping in and out of the turning circle should work...need to put that into practice.

Trouble is that this is a 1vs1 and its hard to get that on a dogfight server.

geetarman
03-04-2005, 09:39 AM
The more I read these accounts, the more I start to become skeptical of them. If the two accounts above about the P-38 and Spit are referring to the same mock df - ROTLMAO! I can't believe they are, however.

One thing, Lowell, I believe, was a very experienced 38 pilot that started in the PTO before coming to Europe. I have read another account from a ETO 38 jock who observed Lowell in df at low alts with Luft fighters. He expressed astonishment at some of the manuevers Lowell was pulling. Something about loops at 1,000'. I may be mistaking him for another pilot, however.

Zur-TECH
03-04-2005, 09:46 AM
This thead is a perfect example of why anidotal stories and pilot biographies should not be used to justify expected flight model performance.

If left to this device, all prop planes would do mach 2, breath fire and fart noxious gas!

These stories are great to "flavor" expected flight performance, because no numbers can adequately give us the individial aircraft particular neauances... but around here way too much weight is given to the memories in the minds of legends. So much so that some are lead to believe them as hoyle.

www.Zur-TECH.com (http://www.Zur-TECH.com)

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
The more I read these accounts, the more I start to become skeptical of them. If the two accounts above about the P-38 and Spit are referring to the same mock df - ROTLMAO! I can't believe they are, however.

One thing, Lowell, I believe, was a very experienced 38 pilot that started in the PTO before coming to Europe. I have read another account from a ETO 38 jock who observed Lowell in df at low alts with Luft fighters. He expressed astonishment at some of the manuevers Lowell was pulling. Something about loops at 1,000'. I may be mistaking him for another pilot, however. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know if Hendley story is true.. Ill assume it is, and in doing so this is a perfect example of what I have been saying for some time now..

Pilot accounts can be so useless.

These accounts dont tell us much about the planes as they do the pilot's skill. As chuck said.. It is the man not the machine. So dont base my FM off of some once in a blue moon pilot account where a Bufflo beat a ZERO in a 1 on 1! Because the FM should not simulate LUCK, it should simulate hard numbers! And hard numbers typically only come from flight test data.

PS a Buffalo did shot down a ZERO in a 1 vs. 1, it was one of the first ZERO kills of the war.

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
This thead is a perfect example of why anidotal stories and pilot biographies should not be used to justify expected flight model performance.

If left to this device, all prop planes would do mach 2, breath fire and fart noxious gas!

These stories are great to "flavor" expected flight performance, because no numbers can adequately give us the individial aircraft particular neauances... but around here way too much weight is given to the memories in the minds of legends. So much so that some are lead to believe them as hoyle.

http://www.Zur-TECH.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AMEN BROTHER!

MEGILE
03-04-2005, 09:52 AM
I don't doubt someone like Bong in a P-38 could give a Spitfire a hard time.. but like-wise get Johnnie Johnson in the Spitfire, and the lightning is going down.

Zur-TECH
03-04-2005, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
I don't doubt someone like Bong in a P-38 could give a Spitfire a hard time.. but like-wise get Johnnie Johnson in the Spitfire, and the lightning is going down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Yeager says.. "It's the man, not the machine"... (To a degree) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

When I read all the flight-model arguing around here it makes me cringe. Now don't get me wrong... there is no doubt FMs are a little off in areas... but IMHO, all the planes have adequate advantages and disadvantages to make these minor discrepancies mute due to this being a simulation/game. Reason being, very few folks fly with "self-preservation" in mind... This IMHO, is a key ingrediant that is missing when we are all fighting in out virtual worlds... If our actions and inactions meant life or death, we'd all fly our birds differently. Differently enough where the these small inaccuracies would amount to the difference in winning or loosing. However because we all fly ball-to-the wall... the inaccuracies amount to a hill of beans, when there is no real fear of repercussion!

IMHO, too many people listen to these grand stories and expect to hop in their supposed "uber flavor-of-the-day" and beat all comers because so-and-so legendary pilot says it should be unbeatable. Yeah, unbeatable in "his" hands is what they seem to miss...

Hendley
03-04-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
I dont know if Hendley story is true.. Ill assume it is, and in doing so this is a perfect example of what I have been saying for some time now..

Pilot accounts can be so useless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit surprised to find myself agreeing with Tagert, but amen to that. I don't know if the story is true either (though at least I cited the source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), and I love pilot accounts, but they are surely among the least reliable sources of data vis-a-vis comparative aircraft performance.

I mean, if I have to read another account about how the P38 could outturn a bf109/zero/sopwith camel or whatever, I think I'll poke my eye out with my joystick.

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
Like Yeager says.. "It's the man, not the machine"... (To a degree) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And it is that *degree* which Yeager was refering too when he made the statement.. In that he knew the planes were very simular, thus, the pilot makes the difference. Im rest well at night knowing in my hart that Yeager didnt mean a good pilot in a Dr.1 could beat a bad F15 pilot in a Dr.1 vs a F15 dogfigt. Yeagers statment knowing that the differences between alot of these planes were very Very VERY small.. So small that the real *difference* is in the pilot not the plane. Know your strenghts and stick with them.. Also helps to know the enemys strenghts.. Which is way so many risked so much to capture and or recover enmy aircraft during WWII. So with that said, and knowing that the pilot is what real maters, we should remember what another great man said when we go into sim battle online.. "Man's got to know *his* limitations" or was it "Do you feel lucky punk?" Eitherway, point is the delta between the planes is typically small, the pilot skill is the deciding factor.. Oh and dont forget dumb luck! That is probally on par with the pilot skill! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
When I read all the flight-model arguing around here it makes me cringe. Now don't get me wrong... there is no doubt FMs are a little off in areas... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No doubt, in that no simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
but IMHO, all the planes have adequate advantages and disadvantages to make these minor discrepancies mute due to this being a simulation/game. Reason being, very few folks fly with "self-preservation" in mind... This IMHO, is a key ingrediant that is missing when we are all fighting in out virtual worlds... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%! Which is why I love the death kick in some of the servers.. You can see it has an effect on how people (some, most, not all too many kids out there) and how they fly.. Allmost to the point that you start to see things that allmost *look* like the storys you hear about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
If our actions and inactions meant life or death, we'd all fly our birds differently. Differently enough where the these small inaccuracies would amount to the difference in winning or loosing. However because we all fly ball-to-the wall... the inaccuracies amount to a hill of beans, when there is no real fear of repercussion! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%! Which is why I have to laugh when guys complain how such and such plane does not OWN like it *says* it did in the pilot accounts they have read.. Funny how brave eveyone is when the bullets are not real! Frecon John Waynes one and all! No wonder the online games does not reflect real lift storys!!! Thus the plane does not seem to be like it was described.. Heck, look online and note how many LOAN WOLFS there are flying around looking for a fight.. That probally NEVER HAPPENED in RL and if it did it was certanlly the EXCEPTION and not the RULE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
IMHO, too many people listen to these grand stories and expect to hop in their supposed "uber flavor-of-the-day" and beat all comers because so-and-so legendary pilot says it should be unbeatable. Yeah, unbeatable in "his" hands is what they seem to miss... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AMEN BROTHER!!

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Bit surprised to find myself agreeing with Tagert, but amen to that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.remnantsaints.com/AlternativeUtilities/images/hell_freeze.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
I don't know if the story is true either (though at least I cited the source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops, my bad, I must have missed the source.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
and I love pilot accounts, but they are surely among the least reliable sources of data vis-a-vis comparative aircraft performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
I mean, if I have to read another account about how the P38 could outturn a bf109/zero/sopwith camel or whatever, I think I'll poke my eye out with my joystick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? Oh, because you decided to belive one pilot's story over anothers? Or do you have some data to support that *feeling*? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
03-04-2005, 01:07 PM
While there is no doubt that the 'average' ETO pilot wasn't that effective in the Lightning as he would be in a Spitfire or Mustang, a gifted & experienced 38 driver was a thing to be feared like Satan his ownself.

I don't know about the Bong vs Johnson match; both were marksmen and opportunists in style rather than aerobatics exhibitionists. The matchup you're looking for is Tommy McGuire vs Hans-Joachim Marseille. Both loved to zoom in and out of enemy formations and used extreme maneuvers to nail their victims (although each enjoyed significant advantages in performance and tactical sophistication over his opponents). I don't recall any particularly successful Spitfire proponents of that style, however. The RAF seems to have emphasized maneuverability for defensive tactics and speed and hitting power for offense.

While the game engine of the FB/AEP/PF series makes some of the features of the P-38 hard or impossible to model, the trim model is flat out atrocious, the tendency to stall is way too great & the effects are just wrong, compression sets in too early & lasts too far into the lower altitudes and the elevators are simply ineffective compared to my understanding of the real thing.

It is still possible to find and use some of the aircraft's historic strengths, though, (accelleration and climb are close, and the firepower is appreciable, though the trim/gunshake takes away some of its effectiveness) and after a couple of weeks of working some QMB scenarios, I have to say it's a lot of fun to fly, except for my inability to fit it under those pedestrian bridges at the rail stations.

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-04-2005, 01:09 PM
Ok, The above are just web accounts without proper source. IMO I do give them a good credibility. And---BTW, I didnt mention the FM about the P38 in Pacific Fighters. I think Oleg did a pretty good job except the exagerated low speed stall/spin and the low altitude compressability. BTW, I read that Bong got over half his kills from head on attacks. Also, Mcguire, Second leading P38 ace was killed when he dove after some Oscars, trying to beat Bongs numbers and turned with his tanks still on.... and stalled. ///
///What i have read about turning in a dogfight has more to do with the pilots strength and stamina then the plane's capabilities. Blackouts, poor SA and exhaustion are a limiting factor in most DF situation, from what ive read. For example, At higher speeds the zero loses its turning advantage because of the high stick force required (45bs and up) to pull trough a turn. the P-38L has power assist control surfaces. Also the P38L has fowler flaps which increase lift without the drag involved on standard flaps. No torque in stalls and a low 68 mph stall speed at SL. The real 38 in the hands of a ace could pull accellerated stalls through a corner. What i read is that most p38 pilots found the 38 too complicated to fly. additionally. Between the allied fighters The P38 was the fastest accellerating, and fastest climing. IMO the P38 is close in PF (the 109Z is a UFO). I have more..cheers

Hendley
03-04-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
I mean, if I have to read another account about how the P38 could outturn a bf109/zero/sopwith camel or whatever, I think I'll poke my eye out with my joystick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? Oh, because you decided to belive one pilot's story over anothers? Or do you have some data to support that *feeling*? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, Tagert, you're spoiling the warm fuzzies we had going with your split-a-post-into-tiny-little-bits-and-argue- argue-argue thang...

To answer your question: because I've read too many.

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Oh, Tagert, you're spoiling the warm fuzzies we had going with your plit-a-post-into-tiny-little-bits-and-argue- argue-argue thang... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We? Do you have a french mouse in your pocket?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
To answer your question: because I've read too many. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, Well I *know* you *feel* that way, but if it is not clear by now I am not impressed with or by *feelings*. In that this thread clearly shows that just because you read one (or too many) stories they really dont tell us anything about how the plane flys.

The only thing I do *know* for a fact, is that nothing has been presented *here* to prove or disprove *either* story.

And I find it funny that you went out of your way to discredit one story with another to show how silly it is to belive in *stories* yet in the end your beliefs (aka *feelings*) are based off of these same *stories*. Be it one or *too many* it does not change the fact that they are just *stories*. Ill take a flight test data sheet over that any day of the week.

Zur-TECH
03-04-2005, 02:11 PM
Personally I've found the great majority of the planes fly reasonably well/close to specs through the "controlled" portion of their flight envelopes... it's outside these envelopes is where the game engine gets odd.

Perfect example being the P-38... Generally up-to-snuff in the envelope, but the rotational torque limitation of the game, and the well-discussed stall threshold is why many believe it's porked.

I however argue that in reality a well-trained pilot would know this envelope... maybe skirt it occasionally, but for fear of becoming a dirt-dart or a slow-moving target, I suspect few flew outside the envelope. However when "we" fly this bird we ham-fist it and haul it around like it was a show-pony! No wonder we stall and spin the **** thing... we fly with no fear of repercussion... because there is none. "It's a game".

As noted ealier, pilot fatigue and stick forces is another issue that dove-tails nicely into my argument... We cannot fully expect these birds to fly fully to specifications, because "we" are able to fly them outside the enviromental scope of reality.

The only way to do this would be to impose artificial limitations and advantages into each plane to simulate this 'reality"... but then we lose even more FM fidelity to justify an end.

Double-edge swords no matter which way you turn...

Blackdog5555
03-04-2005, 02:26 PM
I agree Zur-tech..The P38 in PF i definately not a T&B fighter. I do well online by getting high and diving. Use dive brakes then short burst then skoot. Stay fast and you can outrun most e/a. The Dive Brakes give the P38 extra lift in PF so you can tighten the circle! But never get caught going slow!!! LOL

IRL...The P-38 is credited with destroying more Japanese planes then any other Allied fighter in the PTO! fact....

More online stories/editorials.

"The Lightning was ideally suited for the Pacific theatre. It possessed a performance markedly superior to that of its Japanese opponents. It possessed a range significantly better than that of the P-39s, P-40s and P-47s available in 1942 in the Southwest Pacific, and its twin engines offered an additional safety factory when operating over long stretches of water and jungle. The Lightnings proved to be extremely rugged and could take a lot of battle damage and still keep flying. Missions lasting 9, 10, or even 12 hours became routine, and many wounded Lightnings were able to limp home on only one engine. The maneuverability of the Lightning was inferior to that of its nimble Japanese opponents, but by the use of appropriate tactics--for example the avoidance of dogfighting at low altitudes and the use of fast diving attacks--enabled the P-38 squadrons in New Guinea and the Solomons to achieve impressive results.

When compared with the Zero, the Lightning came off badly in terms of speed and maneuverability at medium and low altitudes, but had a far higher top speed, rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. When the P-38 tried to outturn a Zero at low altitudes, it usually ended up second best. However, when the unique attributes of the Lightning were used to best effect, the results were devastating. The best tactic was for the Lightnings to loiter at high altitudes and then dive down on Zero formations in a blaze of concentrated firepower, using the Lightning's impressive climbing rate to zoom back up out of harm's way. If this did not work, the wise Lightning Lightning pilot would then use his superior speed to make good his escape."

Word! cheers

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
Personally I've found the great majority of the planes fly reasonably well/close to specs through the "controlled" portion of their flight envelopes... it's outside these envelopes is where the game engine gets odd.

Perfect example being the P-38... Generally up-to-snuff in the envelope, but the rotational torque limitation of the game, and the well-discussed stall threshold is why many believe it's porked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That has been *a* problem with simulating flight for years.. In that the equations of motion only hold up during flight.. ie still inside the envelope. Once they exceed that and go into a "stall" the code switches from the "equations of motion" to the "spin code". The spin code is used to simulate your aircraft when your in a spin (duh right?), where you will remain until certain conditions are met. In EAW you use to have to apply opposite rudder.. like most flight sims before it.. but they ADDED the feature that you had to put the stick into the spin.. That was based off of some P51 flight manual.. That applied to P51s.. But not all aircraft. It caused a lot of debate back then. Olegs spin model seems pretty good.. seems to have some verity in it. As for near stall stuff.. I don't know if the equations of motion can be expanded on to make for a better edge of the envelope ride.. The equations tend to fall apart (not simulate flight well) near the edge of the envelope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
I however argue that in reality a well-trained pilot would know this envelope... maybe skirt it occasionally, but for fear of becoming a dirt-dart or a slow-moving target, I suspect few flew outside the envelope. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
However when "we" fly this bird we ham-fist it and haul it around like it was a show-pony! No wonder we stall and spin the **** thing... we fly with no fear of repercussion... because there is none. "It's a game". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And just another reason why the simulated plan experiences don't match up well with the stories we read.. Which is not to say the simulation is doing a bad job of simulating the plane.. Just that we are pushing *it* harder than *most* did in WWII, thus *most* stories don't match what *we* do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
As noted ealier, pilot fatigue and stick forces is another issue that dove-tails nicely into my argument... We cannot fully expect these birds to fly fully to specifications, because "we" are able to fly them outside the enviromental scope of reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure, pretty sure, but stick force input limits are modeled.. At what they are set to.. I don't know.. Are they simulating a stringie arm guy or Arnold?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
The only way to do this would be to impose artificial limitations and advantages into each plane to simulate this 'reality"... but then we lose even more FM fidelity to justify an end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There was a sim awhile back that did something like that.. Simulated the fatigue by making the onset of black outs get worse the longer you flew under g forces. I wish that was an option here.. But like you said it would probably cause the sim maker more grief in that some noob would be upset that he cant do what the other guys is doing even though they are in the same plane.. not realizing that it is not he is just more fatigued.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
Double-edge swords no matter which way you turn... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True that!

ddsflyer
03-04-2005, 02:31 PM
Read "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie. In it there are numerous references to the turning ability of the P-38. Properly flown, it would outturn ANY German fighter and most Japanese as well. Tommy McGuire would routinely outturn later model (heavier) Zeros using combat flaps and the superior power to weight ratio to sustain the turn.

Hendley
03-04-2005, 02:38 PM
*pokes eye out with joystick*

Ah well, never could shoot straight anyways...

BluesmanSF
03-04-2005, 02:39 PM
Thanks, it was a nice story! ..and you got me interested of the "accelerated stall" feature of the P-38..

I, like many others I presume, have heard a lot of stories about the unbeatable and feared "Fork tailed devil" and I was so excited when the P-38 became flyable, but as I'm finnish, I made the decision to practice flying the Bf109's and Brewsters.

Anyway, my point is; Is it possible to do perform the "accelerated stall" maneuver in the sim right now? (I'll have to try anyway after I've completed this post.. ) As it would be a very nice maneuver (Am I spelling it correctly? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) to master. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Edit: I made the record of typos in 1 single post..

Cheers!

horseback
03-04-2005, 02:40 PM
Corrections are in order after Blackdog's post:

1) The overwhelming majority of outstanding fighter pilots in WWII were generally pretty good athletes in sports emphasizing strength, endurance, and teamwork. Physical strength was a prerequisite for the job, as much as good eyesight, and was the norm. P-38 drivers of the earlier types did have to work harder to roll the airplane, but the elevator authority was exceptional-translating into way better than expected turn rate (even without the Fowler flaps), or a near instantaneous transition from shallow dive or level flight to steep climb-in which the two handed grip on the yoke gave a leverage advantage over a normal stick, even with a (usually belated) two-handed grip.

After the stall/spin issue, I consider this the greatest sin of Oleg's FM against the Lightning. The P-47's relatively accurate FM is is way better in this regard. The Lightning should be faster than the Jug in a pullout or pullup at almost any speed, without decreasing the P-47's elevator response.

2)Fowler Flaps were on the vast majority of combat models of the Lightning, beginning with the P-38F-15. A very few D and E models saw combat without them, but it was on most Lightnings that saw combat from North Africa and New Guinea onwards.

3) Hydraulic boost for the controls arrived early in the 38J model run, and the dive brakes came shortly thereafter in the J-25. Taken in combination, these improvements addressed the major P-38 faults for high altitude combat over northern Europe, and made it more than competitive with the LW fighters it was facing.

4) Blackdog is right about Lightning's complicated operation. The 38 was vastly harder to learn to operate at its full potential-generally, the experienced combat-ready P-38 driver had double the hours in flight in-type of a comparably effective Mustang or Thunderbolt pilot, according to people who would know. Once that level was achieved, however, Katie, bar the door!

5) The clearest accounts of McGuire's last flight indicate that his flight of four was bouncing a single Oscar--flown, unfortunately for them, by an experienced pro. In the fighter pilot's vernacular, the Oscar was so frickin' maneuverable you could fly up your own @ss with it- and a good pilot could exit safely out of either ear without getting wax on his wingtips.

The Oscar driver, who was clearly in the unwaxed wingtip class, got on top of the junior member of Mac's flight by making judicious use of this maneuverability and low-hanging clouds, and while attempting to pull around and come to his wingman's aid (who he probably couldn't see), McGuire stalled his fighter at very low altitude, and crashed. At some point in the fight, a Ki-84 may also have joined in, although there was only one postwar survivor from the fight (the Japanese participants were apparently killed shortly after), and he didn't see much through the clouds.

cheers

horseback

Zur-TECH
03-04-2005, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Read "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie. In it there are numerous references to the turning ability of the P-38. Properly flown, it would outturn ANY German fighter and most Japanese as well. Tommy McGuire would routinely outturn later model (heavier) Zeros using combat flaps and the superior power to weight ratio to sustain the turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly a case where only half the information is presented to justify the story. There is a big difference between "instant turn" and "sustained turn"... There is no way a P-38 with it's high wing load regardless of it's t2w ratio, could hold a sustained turn with a Zero... flat out impossible...period. However, with combat flaps I can easily believe a P-38 could hold a snap or instant turn inside a Zero... for a very short duration. Thus P-38 drivers developed and perfected the "cloverleaf" manuver to take advantage of this particular neuance!...

This is a perfect example where half information is dangerous... especially where folks hold it as hoyle.

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
*pokes eye out with joystick*

Ah well, never could shoot straight anyways... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I read a *story* about a guy who did that once.. This makes two.. So I guess it is safe to assume that everyone is missing an eye? Statistically speaking! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
03-04-2005, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Ok, The above are just web accounts without proper source. IMO I do give them a good credibility. And---BTW, I didnt mention the FM about the P38 in Pacific Fighters. I think Oleg did a pretty good job except the exagerated low speed stall/spin and the low altitude compressability. BTW, I read that Bong got over half his kills from head on attacks. Also, Mcguire, Second leading P38 ace was killed when he dove after some Oscars, trying to beat Bongs numbers and turned with his tanks still on.... and stalled. ///
///What i have read about turning in a dogfight has more to do with the pilots strength and stamina then the plane's capabilities. Blackouts, poor SA and exhaustion are a limiting factor in most DF situation, from what ive read. For example, At higher speeds the zero loses its turning advantage because of the high stick force required (45bs and up) to pull trough a turn. the P-38L has power assist control surfaces. Also the P38L has fowler flaps which increase lift without the drag involved on standard flaps. No torque in stalls and a low 68 mph stall speed at SL. The real 38 in the hands of a ace could pull accellerated stalls through a corner. What i read is that most p38 pilots found the 38 too complicated to fly. additionally. Between the allied fighters The P38 was the fastest accellerating, and fastest climing. IMO the P38 is close in PF (the 109Z is a UFO). I have more..cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well then what are the links to the web sites?

Blackdog5555
03-04-2005, 03:50 PM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_18.html
http://home.tiscali.dk/winthrop/p38.html

there is a couple

Here is the other

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/ad6309ce675d5ac4/38fd1105624692d5?q=insubject:success+insubject:eur ope+insubjecthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif38&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fas_usubject%3Dsuccess+europe+p38 %26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D17%26as_minm%3D12%26as_ miny%3D1996%26as_maxd%3D17%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_max y%3D1996%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#38fd1105624692d5

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 03:58 PM
See the P-38 has an excellent turn but much like the FW190 it can only hold it for a short time. On the other hand, the P-38 holds into a stall fight better than a FW190. There's some variety I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But I don't believe it when they say that P-38s were in turns with Zeros...thats utter bollocks. We aren't getting the whole picture of the situation or it just never happened and its just a matter of interpretation of a memory of something fantastic and sudden that can't be taken for total fact. (and lets be honest, we don't remember the full details of all the things we've done, even the more memorable ones - we just know basically what happened and how it turned out so I would expect the same from pilots)

Blackdog5555
03-04-2005, 04:08 PM
BTW, Bong used to do the same with the P38 on landing. come in fast and low over the strip do a loop and while inverted, drop landing gear, cut engine and bla bla into a perfect 3 pointer.//////
****In this game if you try to slip into an accellerated stall/turn, you usually will spin the plane. But, try mapping/putting the dive brakes on your j-stick. as you enter a tight turn , drop your combat flaps and dive brake at the same time! The dive brake gives you pretty good lift! you will catch a 109 in a turn. Slowing down for a tight turn is always risky in a 38 though. Good luck.. I would like to see more people flying 38s. The DM on them is questionable. But so are most. Cheers

ddsflyer
03-04-2005, 05:43 PM
Zur-TECH- Don't take my word for it, READ THE BOOK before you pronounce impossibility.

mortoma
03-04-2005, 05:46 PM
I have a QMD mission saved where I pit myself and 7 other P-38s against 8 KI-84s, all 15 AI planes set on ace. I play about 5 times like that, then I switch my side to the freekin' Beaufighter and fly 5 or so times in that plane. We almost always do better in the Beau against the stupid AI KI-84s!!!
This is not a good sign as far as the overall FM and DM of the P-38 IMHO. The Beaus are tougher, more manueverable to boot. Something ain't right I'm afraid..............P-38s should smoke the Beaufighter!!!

Treetop64
03-04-2005, 06:19 PM
Most of what you need to know about this bird is right here:

http://p-38online.com

Flown the way she was designed to be flown (BnZ, not TnB), she is untouchable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

TAGERT.
03-04-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I have a QMD mission saved where I pit myself and 7 other P-38s against 8 KI-84s, all 15 AI planes set on ace. I play about 5 times like that, then I switch my side to the freekin' Beaufighter and fly 5 or so times in that plane. We almost always do better in the Beau against the stupid AI KI-84s!!!
This is not a good sign as far as the overall FM and DM of the P-38 IMHO. The Beaus are tougher, more manueverable to boot. Something ain't right I'm afraid..............P-38s should smoke the Beaufighter!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont confuse a well modeled FM or DM with poorly modeled AI. The AI in IL2-PF is the wost AI I have seen in years! Oleg better thank god IL2-PF has online appeal, in that if it had to sell based off of its offline campain engine and it's AI.. Well it would have died years ago imho.. Which bings us to BoB.. Oleg better forget about making a better FM and more complex 3D art and start thinking about working on the campain engine and AI. Because with the limited plane set, and somewhat better eye candy, BoB will have a hard time trying to unseat IL2-PF in the online market.. Which only leaves the offline market.

Stackhouse25th
03-04-2005, 06:45 PM
Ive done it!! P38 rides the stall fairly well, kind of like a Piper Seminole.

I suppose its normal for most

Treetop64
03-04-2005, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stackhouse25th:
Ive done it!! P38 rides the stall fairly well... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations! Yay!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tully__
03-04-2005, 06:54 PM
All I have to say is that if we want to fly like the real pilots, we'd do 2 hours a day under instruction for 3 months before even being allowed near a combat mission.... not counting "classroom" time.

fordfan25
03-04-2005, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I have a QMD mission saved where I pit myself and 7 other P-38s against 8 KI-84s, all 15 AI planes set on ace. I play about 5 times like that, then I switch my side to the freekin' Beaufighter and fly 5 or so times in that plane. We almost always do better in the Beau against the stupid AI KI-84s!!!
This is not a good sign as far as the overall FM and DM of the P-38 IMHO. The Beaus are tougher, more manueverable to boot. Something ain't right I'm afraid..............P-38s should smoke the Beaufighter!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont confuse a well modeled FM or DM with poorly modeled AI. The AI in IL2-PF is the wost AI I have seen in years! Oleg better thank god IL2-PF has online appeal, in that if it had to sell based off of its offline campain engine and it's AI.. Well it would have died years ago imho.. Which bings us to BoB.. Oleg better forget about making a better FM and more complex 3D art and start thinking about working on the campain engine and AI. Because with the limited plane set, and somewhat better eye candy, BoB will have a hard time trying to unseat IL2-PF in the online market.. Which only leaves the offline market. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


agreed. F.B's camp's were good but i have to say PF has a very unfinshed and bland feel. that and the very huge lack of diverse mission. i flew a few days ago the same mission 4 times in a row in the US navy fighter campaign. same target same enemys at the same times on the same flight path.

fordfan25
03-04-2005, 09:03 PM
can some one post a link to this manuver of rideing the stall please.

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 03:08 AM
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93087.

The cloverleaf works a bit in PF but u need to substitute the dive flaps for the Fowler Combat flaps IMO.. Works better at very low altitudes too! Cheers

Zur-TECH
03-05-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Zur-TECH- Don't take my word for it, READ THE BOOK before you pronounce impossibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, I don't mean to dimiss you or what you read, but the fact of the matter is the wing load of the P-38 is so great that any prolonged turn (especially to the degree that would need to be taken to follow a Zero)... would bleed so much speed that the P-38 would be left wallowing like spring sow and the Zero would be nipping on the P-38s tail in less than two turns.

Not all that's written is gospel... especially when it's a anidotal story.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
Not all that's written is gospel... especially when it's a anidotal story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! And we have not even begun to talk about the difference between what was intended by the writer vs. what was interpreted by the reader. That can muddy the waters even further.. To the point that what was intended is 180 from what was interpreted.

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 11:37 AM
And few really understand the complex variables that go into "air combat". I just know a few well known ones. Most

1. pilot strength. The average US flyer vs the average Japanese flyer. I read that the average japanese soldier was about 5'2 and 120lbs. Only a factor in high speed sustained DF. but...
2. training. I read that early in the war US flyers were getting 60 hours of flight training. By the end of the war they were getting @20. Well, by the end of the war in Japan???? ..Japan the pilots were getting about, well...bla bla
3. Pilot skill. Ill take a Richard Bong in a 38 over Sugita in his zero any day. IMO. (i'm Biased)
4. tactics. Fly high, stay fast, never dogfight a Zero and never engage unless you have easy advantage.
4.a gunnery practice
4.b gunnery skill

5. Now for the less important aspects.

Wing loading. Well the P38 had a monster 53 foot wing but the late L and m models I believe had had 2 Allisons with a mil rating of 1460 hp each and WEP of 1600hp each (at Altitude) thats 3200hp and two huge props in a 16,000lb monster. thats a lot of Ponies to overcome the drag! Thats how they did the cloverleaf.. power through the stall!

Its been posted to death about the how the Zero loses its fantasic turn rate at high speed. At @200mph the Zero turns in a @700ft. radius. nobody beats that. nobody. so, what is its turn rate/radius at 275mph, and at 300mph. I dont know but its bad. Can a 120lb pilot even pull a Zero through a turn at 275 mph? I sure he can, but???. T. McQuire said that you never should get caught below 250mph in a P38. regardless, the basic rule still applies. Never dogfight a Zero!
then:
6. speed, altitude. air density
7. engine settings
8. maintenance and fuel
9. the 10,000 other variables. I have read some books on this and it is complicated. My post was only to show that Kelly Johnson's P38, in the right hands, was not that bad a plane IRL. Cheers.

mortoma
03-05-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I have a QMD mission saved where I pit myself and 7 other P-38s against 8 KI-84s, all 15 AI planes set on ace. I play about 5 times like that, then I switch my side to the freekin' Beaufighter and fly 5 or so times in that plane. We almost always do better in the Beau against the stupid AI KI-84s!!!
This is not a good sign as far as the overall FM and DM of the P-38 IMHO. The Beaus are tougher, more manueverable to boot. Something ain't right I'm afraid..............P-38s should smoke the Beaufighter!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont confuse a well modeled FM or DM with poorly modeled AI. The AI in IL2-PF is the wost AI I have seen in years! Oleg better thank god IL2-PF has online appeal, in that if it had to sell based off of its offline campain engine and it's AI.. Well it would have died years ago imho.. Which bings us to BoB.. Oleg better forget about making a better FM and more complex 3D art and start thinking about working on the campain engine and AI. Because with the limited plane set, and somewhat better eye candy, BoB will have a hard time trying to unseat IL2-PF in the online market.. Which only leaves the offline market. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes but I do better against the KI-84s in my QMB mission. It's not just the AI!!! How's come I can down KIs easier in the Beau than the P-38???? Don't make sense at all.
I get killed or hit the chute flying the P-38 most of the time but I end up landing at the end of the fight when I fly the Beau.

bolillo_loco
03-05-2005, 05:44 PM
when it comes to the P-38 it was the combat flap setting that permitted it to turn very tight for a plane that had such a high wing loading. few a/c from wwII actually had combat flaps. yet nearly every a/c in this game has them.

even with out combat flaps at very low speeds it turned well because the stall characteristics were excellent.

I have read from more than once source that using dive recovery flaps, combat flaps, asemetic thrust permitted the 38 to turn very tight.

a few months back somebody provided a test from 1942 38 vs 190. the test concluded that the 190 could out turn the 38 at medium to high speed, but the 38 could out turn the 190 at low speed. the reason why I point out this test is because from the date of the test it had to be an early 38F model. early f models did not have combat flaps. I believe the -15 F model was the first 38 to have combat flaps and only 100-200 of them were made.

for those of you that have america's hundred thousand just flick to the P-63. there it stats that the P-63 and P-38 were equal in turning if the 38 used its maneouver flap setting. it further states that the P-63 could get on a mustangs tail after 3-4 turns and on the 47s tail in two turns or less. there is a lot of info out there on the P-38, and I mean in books not web sites. I was a person that thought the 38 was a horrible plane in real life. it was online gamming that made me resarch the 38. my intentions were to prove that the real life 38 could not out climb and out turn the 51 and 47. it seems that the more I read the 38 actually did out climb and turn the 51 and 47. that is how I came to like the P-38. I use to suffer from "mustang mania" thought the 51 was the end of a/c of wwII.

horseback
03-05-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Zur-TECH- Don't take my word for it, READ THE BOOK before you pronounce impossibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, I don't mean to dimiss you or what you read, but the fact of the matter is the wing load of the P-38 is so great that any prolonged turn (especially to the degree that would need to be taken to follow a Zero)... would bleed so much speed that the P-38 would be left wallowing like spring sow and the Zero would be nipping on the P-38s tail in less than two turns.

Not all that's written is gospel... especially when it's a anidotal story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, it's anecdotal, or antidote.

However, when you get a lot of people in one unit saying that they did it, or saw someone else consistently do it, it's more than an anecdote. There's a certain possibility that if you do it right, you can hang with a Zero, or even harder, an Oscar, for 360 degrees. In either case, if you can bring the guns of your P-38 to bear, there will be no Japanese fighter to nip at your heels two turns later. Besides, there's all that no-torque accelleration it had; if you can't bring your guns to bear, straighten up, dip your nose a little to pick up speed that much sooner and haul @ss.

While it was not the normal practice of P-38 units, more than one of the aces of the 475th FG appears to have made a practice of staying with his target through their gyrations. McGuire and MacDonald were definitely the pacesetters in this trend, and besides Bodie's book, Caiden comments on it in the Fork-Tailed Devil, and a number of articles in Wings and similar magizines say much the same thing, quoting a number of their squdronmates and a few disbelieving members of other units who witnessed the (for them) unthinkable.

I'll be the first to agree that it was probably an outgrowth of the decline in Japanese skill levels, coupled with the competition for 'kills' within the group that led to the practice. However, once people in a competitive atmosphere see that something can be done, they're going to try it themselves, whether it's a triple toe loop, a behind the back, no-look pass or hauling around in a tight turn at 90mph IAS to zap a Zeke.

I think a similar type of competitive mindset caused the Jagdekorps in North Africa to adopt a more turn and burn, maneuver for the kill shot mentality, as exemplified by Marseille. Most 109 units preferred the vertical zoom and boom approach, but the desert experten were more inclined to use all three dimensions of their aircraft's maneuvering envelope.

Like the P-38 units in the Pacific in late 1944, the fighter staffeln in North Africa from 1941-42 were scrambling to beat each other to all those easy kills. You take chances in competition.

Since the Zeke's roll wasn't anything to write home about, the hydraulically boosted ailerons of the J and L Lightnings would appear to have conferred a bit of a 'catchup' for the pursuing Lightning driver; he saw the Zero starting to roll into the turn, and just out-rolled him to the vertical, picking up a few extra degrees going into the turn. The timidity of the inexperienced Japanese pilots would also come into play; they wouldn't realize how hard they could push their aircraft, and they would make flight school turns instead of pulling the stick back into their bellies until they were on the edge of a stall (and safely inside the P-38's turn circle).

In most cases, the Lightnings at this point in the war had the Japanese outnumbered in most encounters, and certainly outskilled. They could count on their buddies to cover for them if the radical maneuver didn't work out (cost you a few beers later, but hey...), and give you something to crow about later if it did. I mean, this way better than dunking on someone, doncha' think?

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
First, it's _anecdotal_, or antidote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
However, when you get a _lot_ of people in one unit saying that they did it, or saw someone else consistently do it, it's more than an anecdote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, not really. For example, we got a lot of people out there saying they saw little green men coming out of a UFO, still anecdotal imho.

As you pointed out, in a round about way, the P38 pilots are only telling one side of the story.. They really didn't know the state of the enemy pilot or plane. So, it might have happened a lot, but it may have been for something as simple as the enemy pilot was not that good.

For example.. was it McGuire that engaged a Ki with his drop tanks still on? And stalled and died? Where I think it turned out that the Ki pilot was some hot shot jap pilot? Who did some move that McGuire could not follow.. Now that might have worked for McQuire when he went up againts the not so hot (noob) jap pilots.. But clearly didnt in this case.

Just because you hear of, or saw something happened a lot in dogfights does not mean that is the way it *allays* happened.. And just because you never head of, or saw something NOT happen does not mean it couldn't. That is the good and the bad about simulations, in that we can do what they did, and also things they never would have dreamed of.

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 10:42 PM
The last flight of McQuire is a good story. you can find the whole thing on the web. Who know what really happened but the story goes that he decided not to drop tanks cause he wanted to finish his patrol after he dispatched the Oscar. The Oscar was aggressive and turned on the squad and shot at McQuires wingy and hit him. as McQuire turned he "lost power" and stalled at low level. McQuire was a real hot shot so its hard to believe that he didnt know the envelope of his plane. remember, you had 3000hp to pull you around. The 38 was perfectly fitted for the PTO. every P38 after the P38J 25LO had dive brakes and Fowler flaps. Remember a 69mph stall speed at SL.
And Tagert...Yes if someone told me that he and his buddy saw a flying saucer and martians too, credibility would be an issue. If a P38 pilot stated that he beat a P47 in a mock dogfight and gave the full detail and names of the witnesses, well you just might believe him. LOL
come on. in PF/QMB the P38 has a hard time against the P47 in turn fights. Makes me believe that the P38 accelerates a little slow and stall/spins a little too easy. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. The FM is close enough to be fun. Try it using the dive brakes as combat flaps and you can do high speed turns better. As long as you stay fast. The P51, nor the P47 nor the P38 are supposed to be good turn fighters against the Axis fighters. I would like to see some good campaigns using the 475th ...Bong, McGuire and McDonald. would be fun..Just might have o do it myself. cheers buddy!

ImpStarDuece
03-05-2005, 11:04 PM
A few objections to some of your points Blackdog5555;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
1. pilot strength. The average US flyer vs the average Japanese flyer. I read that the average japanese soldier was about 5'2 and 120lbs. Only a factor in high speed sustained DF. but... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wouldn't question the strength of the Japanese male. Japanese Naval training for its pilots included a requirement for them to be able to hang, one handed, from a bar for ten minutes with either arm. That takes some serious arm strength.

Saburo Saki was personally able to do it for 15 minutes. The Japanese Army didn't have quite as stringent requirements but they were still incredibly strong physically and mentally. They were as tough a bunch as you could find anywhere in the world, after all they saw themselves as heirs to the Samurai tradition.

The Japanese training regimen for pilots, particularly basic training, was far tougher and more brutal than anything used in the west. Read 'Samurai', Saburo Sakis autobiography for an account of how harsh it was. If a Japanese person complains about how difficult something is then it must almost be unlivable! I know, I work in Japan and I see them do things that we would consider supremely masochistic.

At the outbreak of hostilities against the USA the Japanese probably had one of the best trained and most experienced air forces in the world. Action in China, continual rotation of pilots through operational units and an incredibly strong 'espirt du corps' made them a highly dangerous opponent.

A lot of USAAF and USN pilots can be thankful that the "15,000 plan", ie. train 15,000 pilots, didn't go ahead in 1938 like some aviation officers wanted.

Oh, and Japanese men average out at about 5'5" and weight about 140lbs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
2. training. I read that early in the war US flyers were getting 60 hours of flight training. By the end of the war they were getting @20. Well, by the end of the war in Japan???? ..Japan the pilots were getting about, well...bla bla <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pre-war I would rate the IJA pilots superior in training to their USAAF counterparts and the IJN and USN pilots roughly equal, maybe with the Japanese combat experience and harshness making them a little superior!

Late war is of course a different story. However, there were still some excellent flyers and trainers in the Japanese air corps. Saburo Saki acted as instructor at airbases in Kyushu, the exact names escape me but I believe they were up north near ***uoka.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
3. Pilot skill. Ill take a Richard Bong in a 38 over Sugita in his zero any day. IMO. (i'm Biased) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be biased but Nishizawa scored 87 kills, Saki scored 64 (with almost a year out of the war for rehabilitation and as a flight instructor) and Iwamoto scored 70. I'll take those guys over Bong any day. These guys performed well even when they lost the advantage in capabilities.

TAGERT.
03-05-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The last flight of McQuire is a good story. you can find the whole thing on the web. Who know what really happened but the story goes that he decided not to drop tanks cause he wanted to finish his patrol after he dispatched the Oscar. The Oscar was aggressive and turned on the squad and shot at McQuires wingy and hit him. as McQuire turned he "lost power" and stalled at low level. McQuire was a real hot shot so its hard to believe that he didnt know the envelope of his plane. remember, you had 3000hp to pull you around. The 38 was perfectly fitted for the PTO. every P38 after the P38J 25LO had dive brakes and Fowler flaps. Remember a 69mph stall speed at SL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kewl!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And Tagert...Yes if someone told me that he and his buddy saw a flying saucer and martians too, credibility would be an issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My extream example was not geared towards credibilty as much as it was to point out the error in acepting *group* preceptions of events.. Take a car wreck or robering and interview 10 people who saw it and you will get 10 different stories. Note, not saying the group is wrong, only pointing out that 99.9% of all pilot combat storys are 1/2 half of the story.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
If a P38 pilot stated that he beat a P47 in a mock dogfight and gave the full detail and names of the witnesses, well you just might believe him. LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would belive he beat him.. But I wouldnt know if it was the plane or the pilot that beat him until I got the other *half* of the story and talked to the P47 pilot too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
come on. in PF/QMB the P38 has a hard time against the P47 in turn fights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Defien *hard*. In that I find that sometimes I win and sometimes I loose and that it tends to have more to do with the initial start advantage/disadvantge and pilots envolved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Makes me believe that the P38 accelerates a little slow and stall/spins a little too easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Makes me think we should go online and do some side by side climbs, rolls, and turns with both people recording track files so we can analylise the data after the test to see if the P38 accelerates a littel slow.. As for stalls.. I think Oleg allready admited that the current FM does not do a good job of simulating twin engines well enough to *capture* the P38 charterstics near the stall.. But, that probally has more to do with the math of the FM and how the equations tend to fall apart near the edge of the envolope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I am not going to lose any sleep over it. The FM is close enough to be fun. Try it using the dive brakes as combat flaps and you can do high speed turns better. As long as you stay fast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I have noticed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The P51, nor the P47 nor the P38 are supposed to be good turn fighters against the Axis fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A lot of people *feel* that way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I would like to see some good campaigns using the 475th ...Bong, McGuire and McDonald. would be fun..Just might have o do it myself. cheers buddy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Probally IL2-PF biggest let down for me is the offline play.. AOTP some 10 years ago had a better campain engine than this.. And AI too book imho. Oleg should thank his lucky stars that IL2-PF has such a large online following.. And in light of the fact that BoB is a very offline campain type of senaror.. Oleg better stop tweaking the FM and start investing some time on the DCG and AI! Without that BoB will be a flop imho

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 12:23 AM
I agree, Eye witness accounts are some of the least reliable info, at times. (sometimes eye witnesses are the best though). Yes, I would like to get some reliable NACA info and then do some tracks. I noticed that When you offline play with stalls and spins off, the P38 handles like a 109 with stall/spin on. try it. IRL, the 38 should/would fall when it stalled, from what i read. without dive brakes it spins worse then the infamous P39. So i would agree that the model on the 2 engine jobs are not there yet. And yes, I agree tht Oleg needs a better offline setup. The p38 is responsible for shooting down more Japanese planes than any allied planes in the PTO (more then the F6F) but There is only one offline battle using the 38..The USAAF in Japan escorting B29s. And, I dont think 38s did escort duty in Japan.. Oleg completely forgot about the 475th. If he does the same for Bob you will need a flame suit in these forums. LOL. cheers..

bolillo_loco
03-06-2005, 01:27 AM
hum the hellcat shot down over 5000 japanese a/c in the pto while the 38 shot down 2,000 something. that doesnt mean either a/c was better than the other it just means that the hellcat got around more. take for example the P-40 in the CBI, it shot down more japanese a/c than did the 38, 47, and 51 combined. simple reason to this, by the time the later 2nd generation fighters showed up they flew unopposed, hence the P-40 shot down more a/c.

while I will agree that in sustained level turns the 38 could keep up with spits and 109s especially the lower the speed got, this notion that it could do it to the ki-43 and zero at slow speeds is a bit far to me. then again if this game modeled spins better (like eaw did) you could probably pull it off if the 38 would not spin when it was stalled provided both engines were operating at the same power and rpm.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 02:37 AM
Duh, sorry, your absolutely right. I meant to say the P38 was the USAAF fighter that shot down more Japanese planes. Funny how leaving out a word can make me so wrong. Thanks!
///Yes, me too, I dont think that anyone, especially would seriously say or think the P38 would do a slow sustained turn inside a Zero. The Zero IRL @200mph, would do a 360 in less than 7 second and inside 700ft (ive read). Just impossible for a P38. At high speeds 274mph and over) it was a different story for the zero, as im sure you know. The rule for P38 pilots in the PTO was to never dogfight (T&B) them (japanese planes). A twin engine 17,000lb 400mph plane chasing a Oscar in a circle. Like a monster truck chasing a Mini Cooper in circles. LOL. cheers

Zur-TECH
03-06-2005, 09:23 PM
I've got a anecdotal story for ya... "I shoved a aluminum bat up this guys **** for correcting my Shiite spelling"...

LOL! Sorry I had to to be a smart ****... ;o)

Back to the issue... I'm not saying "all" stories are 100% pure bunk. I just take issue to those among us who give a higher credibility to a anecdotal story to than to cold hard facts... (You all know who you are) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I noted in one of my original postings... IMHO, these stories give "flavor" to each individual aircraft... a sense of unique neuances... But they should never be confused with hard numbers and well documented facts.

TAGERT.
03-07-2005, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
I've got a anecdotal story for ya... "_I shoved a aluminum bat up this guys **** for correcting my Shiite spelling"..._

LOL! Sorry I had to to be a smart ****... ;o) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yeah.. I have the same problem.. I learned early on in life that I was a bad speller! So, I decided to go into Engineering! Math was just more consistent.. None of those "once in a blue moon rules" that apply *sometimes* (i b4 e except after c) junk. Good thing I did too, cuz most of the people I know that were good spellers went on to be English teachers and they ain't making all that much.. *IF* they even have a job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
Back to the issue... I'm not saying "all" stories are 100% pure bunk. I just take issue to those among us who give a higher credibility to a _anecdotal_ story to than to cold hard facts... (You all know who you are) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I noted in one of my original postings... IMHO, these stories give "flavor" to each individual aircraft... a sense of unique neuances... But they should never be confused with hard numbers and well documented facts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Amen! Say.. Have you had a chance to meet the poster boy of anecdotal storys? His name is Stig and he will put more value in a fart from a pilot than a print out from a gauge reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 01:40 AM
S!

While we are talking hard numbers here, I doubt the AEP/PF P38J climbs at 4000fpm at sea level or 2900fpm at 23,400ft with War Emergency Power (WEP).


Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines.
(P38 J10-LO)
pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10-LO :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed ----------------------421.5mph (WEP)(25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins.(23,400ft)
Service ceiling ---------------------------------------40,000ft



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?


__________________

fordfan25
03-07-2005, 02:18 AM
does eather of the p-38s in the game have WEP. if thay do i do not know how to actavate it.

JG53Frankyboy
03-07-2005, 02:44 AM
in game 100% is military,
110% is war emergency power.

thats my understanding. these "W" button activatet things are special boosts.

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 10:45 AM
Good post Kahuna.. Yes look at your Gauges. When you are at 110 power your manifold pressure goes to 60 which is WEP. I have NACA data that has the climb rate ofthe L at WEP @ 170 MPH to be 3100 ft. In the game I was able to get to 25,000ft in 7min 15 sec. four minute to 15,000ft. But in the Game the top speed ofthe L @25,000ft, clean, .25 fuel, neutral trim maxed out at 397mph. I think Lockheed gives high numbers but the P38J and L "in the game" is 20 to 30 Km/h (about 10-12mph) slower then RL data at all atitudes. I have the tracks. The PF P38 doesnt even measure up to Olegs own data in his "Views". IMO close enough not to whine but....I have the NACA charts but dont know how to paste them.

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 11:00 AM
If you go to this web site you will find Lockheed data chatras on the P38..Very good..I dont have the link right now.

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
By Carlo Kopp

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 12:27 PM
S!

Hya Blackdog,

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel
By Carlo Kopp
Carlo.Kopp@aus.net
C.C.Jordan@worldnet.att.net

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

I have been in contact with both Carlo Kopp & Casey Jordan. The information I posted about the P38L with 1,725hp boost per engine was directly from Casey Jordan and was personally given to him from Warren M. Bodie/Lockheed flight books years ago.

What I am looking for is a way to get copies of the actual Lockheed technical speed and climb curves for the P38L operating with 1,725HP boost setting.

If I can, it may help the F/M problems of the P38L.

___

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 12:44 PM
S!

I forgot to mention the first USAAF test shows 1612bhp (WEP/boost)for the P38J-10-LO, that is not the rated boost used for the P38J in AEP/PF.

The AEP/PF P38L is given 1600hp while in (WEP/boost-110% throttle) when in fact it had 1,725bhp per Allison F-30 engine.

Both the P38J and P38L have the wrong climb specs and WEP brake horsepower ratings. The P38L has the wrong speed at several altitudes.

See the P38J USAAF test below, the test was conducted from a random seletion of factory delivered planes with no special preperations.

I wish I could post the scan I have of this page.


_____

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 12:50 PM
S!

Once again:

While we are talking hard numbers here, I doubt the AEP/PF P38J climbs at 4000fpm at sea level or 2900fpm at 23,400ft with War Emergency Power (WEP).


Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines.
(P38 J10-LO)
pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10-LO :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed ----------------------421.5mph (WEP)(25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins.(23,400ft)
Service ceiling ---------------------------------------40,000ft



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 12:58 PM
Thats great Kahuna. You know how to do your research. Great contact. Yes, I saw Brodie mentioned on that webpage! Like to see the ole 38 up to its numbers. The climb data charts on Zenos are from NACA. The trouble with charts like NACA/Zenos is that i dont know if they start out on the airstrip or startout at 180mph. Sometimes its believed that manufactures pump their numbers. Trouble with Acceleratin data of 2.81mph/sec for the L from 250mph at WEP. IS that a standing 250 or counting from a constant acceleration through 250mph. And to what speed 250 to 300? or 250 to 275? I just did a stop watch test on the 38L in level flight at 100ft AGL. from full WEP from 200mph, in full acelleration, the 38L moved from 250 to 300 in 17.0 sec. (@2.9mph/sec); But from a constant/steady 250mph, it took about 21-22 sec to get to 300mph. @SL clean 25%fuel Crimea. Do you know how Acceleration tests are standardly done?

BigKahuna_GS
03-07-2005, 01:36 PM
S!

Hya Blackdog,

I think that if we had the right WEP ratings and climbs rates :

Official USAAF flight test results:

1600hp-boost per engine for the P38J
Max climb sea level-------------4000fpm
Max climb at critical alt-------2900fpm


Official Lockheed Martin Flight tests:

1,725hp-boost per engine for the P38L
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


I think this would cure 90%+ plus of what's missing in the P38 flight model and the rest could maybe take care of itself.

The P38 would climb like the true interceptor it was designed to be, it would be fast/accelerate better and it would have a terrific dive/zoom climb ability.



Does anybody have the official technical speed and climb curves of these tests above ?


____

horseback
03-07-2005, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zur-TECH:
I've got a anecdotal story for ya... "_I shoved a aluminum bat up this guys **** for correcting my Shiite spelling"..._

LOL! Sorry I had to to be a smart ****... ;o)

Back to the issue... I'm not saying "all" stories are 100% pure bunk. I just take issue to those among us who give a higher credibility to a _anecdotal_ story to than to cold hard facts... (You all know who you are) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I noted in one of my original postings... IMHO, these stories give "flavor" to each individual aircraft... a sense of unique neuances... But they should never be confused with hard numbers and well documented facts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer hickory bats myself-they don't make that annoying 'ping' when you hit something solid, or even when you stuff them into something as mushy as some people's uh, ...perceptions.

I was not speaking of anecdotes, but trends. If you go to contemporary reports, that is, reports written right after the incident occurred, or impressions and suggestions written by combat pilots still in theater, flying missions every other day, the prevailing, clearly stated belief of experienced P-38 pilots is that they can out-turn and out-climb anything in the (Western) Allied or LW inventory, high or low. Period.

No experienced pilots of the Mustang or Thunderbolt made that claim; Don Gentile was thought by many to have realized his own skill as a fighter pilot when he was able to successfully maneuver his P-47 on the deck against a couple of FW 190s on his six until they ran out of ammo or gas in the early winter of 1943-44, and that was an exceptional piece of flying according to all who flew combat missions in the ETO at the time. But no one kidded themselves that they had a better turning single engined fighter, even when the first Mustangs flew their early long ranged escorts and mostly came back alive. They agreed that they held a slight maneuvering edge at high altitudes and high speeds, but warned against getting low and slow.

P-38 drivers in the spring of 1944 didn't bother with caveats, and not just in the Med or the Pacific. They stated unequivocally their belief that they were flying one of the best, if not the best, close-in dogfighters in the inventory, and advised people to get in there and mix it up with the Jerries, because Jerry couldn't turn with, out run or out climb the Lightning in a co-E situation.

Check out Long Reach, volume 31 of the Osprey Aircraft of the Aces series for a partial confirmation. You can also find similar endorsements quoted in Jeffrey Ethell's book, Warren Bodie's book, and, if you can find them, the hardback collections of IMPACT magazines. IMPACT was the USAAF's classified monthly intelligence briefing for pilots and aircrew, detailing what was know about enemy capabilities and how they are best countered, among other things.

When people bet their very lives and encourage others to do the same based upon a perception, it has a lot more validity with me than some test pilot's statistics, particularly a factory test pilot... Few test pilots became great fighter pilots, although a few great fighter pilots traded upon their wartime reps to (eventually) become great test pilots.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "There are lies, d__ned lies, and then sir, there are statistics."

A few months back, someone posted a link to a Soviet ace's discussion about his wartime career. He made an interesting digression into the subject of 'performance versus combat performance', using the early YaK and LaGG fighters, which performed similarly on paper. In combat, it was a different story. The YaK, he noted, had a better combat speed. It responded more quickly and surely to the pilot's control, and was much more effective in combat.

The Lightning had a better combat performance than the contradictory numbers and statistics we have would ever indicate, and the FB/AEP/PF flight model isn't even as good as the numbers.

cheers

horseback

Zur-TECH
03-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Listen here horseback... If I have to reason with common sense and well thought out sentences... I might as well quit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There is no arguing that "more than one" corroborating story is a mighty tasty carrot to bite on€¦ problem is one of the most well known P-38 maneuvers (both offensively and defensively) is in direct conflict with these stories€¦

The €œcloverleaf€ maneuver€¦

The cloverleaf took advantage of three of the P-38s best attributes:

1.) Zero-torque stalls. (Yeah, I know our IL-2 P-38 doesn€t have this but bear with me)
2.) High wing load, which translates into instant-turn/snap turn ability.
3.) Thrust-to-weight ratio.

If the P-38 had such an ability to hang in a sustained turn as the corroborating stories suggest, the cloverleaf maneuver would never had a need to be developed and or utilized€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
03-07-2005, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I was not speaking of anecdotes, but trends. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trends.. as in a summary of several events.. Better known as a statistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
If you go to contemporary reports, that is, reports written right after the incident occurred, or impressions and suggestions written by combat pilots still in theater, flying missions every other day, the prevailing, clearly stated belief of experienced P-38 pilots is that they can out-turn and out-climb anything in the (Western) Allied or LW inventory, high or low. Period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Still only 1 side of the story.. In that you didnt get any feedback from the enmy pilot. That and some times those contemporary reports themselfs are conflicting.. Just like the two that that started this whole topic.

And you forget the biggest problem with contemporary reports. You never get a contemporary report from the DEAD GUYS who were shot down trying to turn with such and such. So, not only are contemporary reports ONE SIDED but they are only ONE HALF of ONE SIDE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
When people bet their very lives and encourage others to do the same based upon a perception, it has a lot more validity with me than some test pilot's statistics, particularly a factory test pilot... Few test pilots became great fighter pilots, although a few great fighter pilots traded upon their wartime reps to (eventually) become great test pilots.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "There are lies, d__ned lies, and then sir, there are statistics." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mark Twain was right! Good thing that NACA test flights didn't consist of a lot of statistics.. They consisted of gauges and graphs that recorded data during flight. So, not really a statistic method.. What actually fits the statistic method is going out and gathering up a lot of similar storys. Works pretty good when you can get input from both sides.. But that is clearly not the case here.. Thus the statistical story method can be very missleading sometimes.. In that your only getting one side of the story, and there is no input provided from the dead guys. All in all it can add up to a pretty bad *trend* (statistic).

horseback
03-07-2005, 06:30 PM
The other half of the story is casualties on both sides. If most or all of the men who took off for a mission come back consistently using the recommended tactics, that's a valuable piece of the story.

If the units' leaders find that they can, in squadrons or flights of four, outrun an enemy flight to a decisive position, turn or climb up beyond an enemy flight or squadron's ability to counter or avoid them in an attempted attack on the escorted bombers, causing them to abort an attack, that's a valuable piece of the story.

They didn't go charging off after the Jerries with Blue Flight and leave White and Yellow Flights to cover the bombers, because they were often a flight or more short due to mechanical aborts, and unable to cover themselves with glory like the Mustang groups. Even so, their claims match up to better than their losses, even if you count mechanical losses and losses to ground fire.

The close escort role was taken more seriously by the P-38 groups because of the reduced numbers they had at rendezvous with the bombers. Like the Tuskegee Airmen, they didn't get the kill credits that the more aggressive groups got, but their bombers appear to have taken fewer losses.

While we're speaking of anecdotes, why do we then place so much emphasis on the recollections of a few supremely skilled experten who never met (willingly) a similarly skilled opponent? These guys had much more influence over their fellows than any American ace could have had with their colleagues, and if Heinz Bar or Hans Knoke said it was an easy kill, then every little Hans and Franz climbing into the cockpit of an FW or 109 thought maybe that would be safer than trying to light up a Spitfire or Mustang. Even if he never met one in the air, well, the Thunderbolts and Mustangs were plenty scary and hard to take out, so someone else must have hogged all the Lightnings, and all the little nachwuchs still thought it was an easy kill, even if neither they nor anyone they knew ever shot one down in a head to head dogfight.

There are certain assumptions made when you see something unusual. The P-38 was enormous, and correspondingly heavy. The power of the engines with a turbo supercharger is invisible, as is the counterrotating props and lack of torque. Fowler flaps are hard to recognize until you see them deployed and see the effect they have on an aircraft's handling; if you're an opponent, it's too late.

Wingloading lift vs drag is radically altered by those flaps, and I doubt that this is treated properly in comparison to other flap designs in the combat setting in the FB/AEP/PF Flight Models. Other aircraft which featured them, like the Ki-43 and Ki-84, are, IMHO, incorrectly given superior maneuverability before the flaps are deployed.

Lightnings were never particularly numerous over the ETO during the key period of the air war from January to May 1944, and their mechanical woes limited their numbers even further. Lightning kills were rare for the Luftwaffe over occupied Europe, even if they were supposedly easy. The much more capable J models with their more efficient cooling systems and hydraulically boosted controls didn't get to England until May or June of 1944.

We have some pretty strong statements recorded by Macky Steinhoff about the near instantaneous turn of the Lightnings he encountered in North Africa and Italy; he noted that it was a bit sluggish in the roll, but unnervingly quick in the turn or climb once that elevator got a chance to bite. The accelleration must have been notable too, because he said that they were on you immediately after you passed.

Other Afrika experten had similar impressions against Lightning groups that had been properly trained up in the type, and those guys were flying early F and E models without the Fowler flaps 8 degree setting for combat flaps. They weren't making cloverleaf turns. They were rolling and hauling the yoke back hard and just firewalling the throttles, wingloading or not.

Very simply, the other side of the story is that the Other Side had more dead guys than the Lightning guys' side. That's the perception that counts.

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-07-2005, 07:30 PM
At 350 mph the 38L would roll at 75 degress a sec. only the 190a was faster with a 81 degee/sec. When you talk about a plane, any plane, and you mention performance, you must also mention speed and altitude. those **** statistics keep getting in the way of facts. At 350mph, with power boost aileron, the 38j 25LO was king. and high speeds turning and rolling had more to with a mans stanina then the planes ability. the man was the limiting factor. High speed rolling and turning caused black out. At 300mph you cant pull hard on any plane cause you will black out. not a statistic. sustaind 4 g turns, etc etc. bla bla. Japanese Zero had a hard time going over 300mph because of Aileron lockup and the KI43 couldnt go over 299mph, period. (SL). pulling turn at 300-350mph. Although A recent post mentioned that some expert/ group commander? felt that a pilot needed at least 200hour training in a P38 before being allowed to do combat because of their complexity. big problem when you only have 20 hours to learn the 38. factor?. a P47 would fly over 32,000 ft because the 109 was sucking for gas at those heights. I read that the in the ETO the P38 canopy frosted over over at 30,000ft and the pilots suffered frostbite. (-60F). In the PTO the high alt prob. with the P38 were not so bad, they could get over most Japanes planes with any problem get over 350mph and bounce. blast with concentrated power then go back to base for a beer. But at high speed, 300-350 plus (never less than 250) the 38L is king<span class="ev_code_RED">high speed</span> is the operative word. Zemke didnt like the P38 because it was too big and identifiable. Also has poor visability because of the engine cowlings. the early compressability problesm too. But some P38 like being easily identified because you didnt get shot by a friendly like the Brit who shot down the transport carrying the 400 dive recovery retro-fit kits for the ETO. LOL. Online, in a undermodeled 38L you can carry two 1000lb. bomb plus 10? rockets. Man. if you get jumped, dump your load and go for the deck. once you get over 350mph you are tough to catch/kill. perfect drag and bag plane.
(if you have a bagger). At 350mph the P38J should perform just like the mustang, almost identical numbers. (according to Lockheed)

horseback
03-07-2005, 09:03 PM
To understand the problems of the Lightning in the ETO, you have to remember that it was RE-introduced into the 8th AF at about the same time as the first Merlin Mustangs, during one of the worst winters of the war.

The 20th and 55th FGs started with 38G& H models, and these had the poor cockpit heating, too efficient oil cooling, and other problems that are generally covered by the poorer quality British distilled avgas not found in any other theater where the P-38 was used with more success. Merlins and the R-2800 appear to have been more forgiving than the V-1710 in this regard.

Another issue is training; unlike the Lightning groups operating elsewhere, these groups had not had extensive in-type training Stateside that the Mediterranean-based groups and the first Pacific groups had, and no combat experience in less capable types against a foe whose aircraft's performance did not generally approach the Lightning's before transitioning, like the later Pacific groups did.

These kids had received the standard single engine fighter training that pilots of Thunderbolts and Mustang pilots had, with the standard number of hours in-type (or at least in the P-322, the castrated British-ordered version) that the other guys got in the single engine types, ignoring the much greater complexity of operating the twin-engined beast. ****ed right it took an extra 200 hours to learn to fight effectively in it; the first 50 or so were spent un-learning things natural and right in single-engined fighter operations.

The logistics problems experienced just getting the Lightning to England in 1943 are not to be overlooked either. As the longest ranged high performance fighter in the inventory at the outset of the war, everybody wanted as many Lightnings as they could get their mits on. But the Lightning had been built and designed to a pre-war specification for a domestically based interceptor, with a maximum order of about 50 airplanes.

Lockheed accordingly designed their fighter to the specification, not with an eye to producing thousands of the things right now. It was designed to be almost hand-built, not mass-produced, and it took Lockheed a long time to get the production of the Lightning up to wartime demands.

Consider too, the need for 'handed' engines; Allison was pumping the regular engines out by the hundreds for the P-39, P-40, and early Mustangs. Out of that, a relatively small percentage had to be made different for one stinkin' customer. Peacetime business mentality comes into play here, especially in the early war period, before the War Department got producers of high priority war materials to toe the line. Allison was selling every engine it could produce; it was less convenient, and therefore less profitable to to produce the 'other-handed' engines for the Lightning. There appear to have been delays.

Nothing is specifically stated, and no one comes out and makes ugly insinuations, but there was a sudden surge in availability after Hap Arnold took a personal interest in delays in P-38 production...

Since the optimists running the 8th AF believed that the B-17s and B-24s would either swarm past the Luftwaffe on their way to flattening Berlin, or that the Germans would move all their fighters into France so that the early P-47s could destroy them there, the first veteran (in the sense that they were prewar trained and had more than average military flying hours) Lightning groups lovingly supported and trained in detail by Lockheed as much as the Army Air Corps were released to Torch, while the rest had been sent to the Pacific.

Once in North Africa, the attrition of combat and operations in the desert used up the fighters literally faster than Lockheed could build them, especially with a little push from the Kriegsmarine's U-Boats. Some of the transports carrying the big fighters to England and Algeria were sunk; the upshot was that the 78th FG ended up with P-47s instead of the P-38 in the spring of 1943, thus delaying the recognition and solving of its ETO-specific problems by six to eight months.

By the time the P-38 finally got to the 8th AF, no one was convinced that the Mustang was the answer that it turned out to be, and 8th AF had raised hell with everyone concerned to get the Lightnings. They took the Mustangs too, just in case.

And here's the next to last nail in the coffin: leadership. The commanders of the 20th and 55th were good, competent officers, but they kept getting lost in action, none had a chance to display or develop the tactical innovativeness or leadership qualities of a Blakeslee or a Zemke, and there were no former Flying Tigers in their squadron commands either.

Finally, there was the lack of rapport with Lockheed. After all the guys coming back from combat in Africa, Italy, the CBI and the Pacific and telling them what a great job their bird was doing, these crybabies in the 8th AF did nothing but whine and complain: "My cockpit's too cold!" "My turbocharger blew up!" "My cylinder heads froze!" "This turkey doesn't roll worth ****te and it can't dive after the Jerries!"

It took at least 4 months to get Lockheed pilots and engineers to England to investigate, and it took a couple of weeks for them to realize that these were all valid complaints. So three months after the problems started revealing themselves, Lockheed got around to addressing them, putting the fixes into the J models already in the production line, and creating update kits for aircraft already being shipped to England where they wer needed most.

By that time, May of 1944, the Mustangs had proved themselves, the P-47 bubbletops with much greater range were in line, the flower of the Jagdewaffe were pushing up daisies and some accounting genius had pointed out to 8th Fighter Command that the Mustang cost about half what a P-38 cost.

Hm. How'd you guys in the 9th Air Force like a bunch of low hour, twin engine fighters capable of a heavy payloads with great firepower, range and performance down on the deck?

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
03-07-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The other half of the story is casualties on both sides. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, what I mean by the other half is the P38 pilots making those statements didn't know the state of the enemy and his plane. Perfect example is at the begging of this thread.. We are told in two seperate story that there were witnesses to the events, yet two very different outcomes.. One the P38 best the Spit, the other the Spit bests the P38. So.. Which GROUP of story do you *choose* to belive? Because without getting the other side of the story we really don't know which plane can out turn the other.. But we can make a pretty good assumption at who the better pilot was! Also factor this into your *statistical* batch of stories.. It has been said that the 1 on 1 dogfight where both pilots see each other and are doing battle was the EXCEPTION not the RULE! That is to say most of the time the pilot who died didn't even know what hit him.. Let along made any moves to evade. If true, the the majority of the story in those reports you hold so dear about about situations where a P38 was attacking a plane that was for the most part just flying alone.. OR busy attacking someone else thus didn't know he should be trying to out turn the guy on his six.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
If most or all of the men who took off for a mission come back consistently using the recommended tactics, that's a valuable piece of the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Valuable yes, Definitive no. IMHO It says a lot about the enemy tactics and pilots.. But does not say much about the machines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
If the units' leaders find that they can, in squadrons or flights of four, outrun an enemy flight to a decisive position, turn or climb up beyond an enemy flight or squadron's ability to counter or avoid them in an attempted attack on the escorted bombers, causing them to abort an attack, _that's_ a valuable piece of the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Valuable yes, Definitive no. IMHO It says a lot about the enemy tactics and pilots.. But does not say much about the machines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
They didn't go charging off after the Jerries with Blue Flight and leave White and Yellow Flights to cover the bombers, because they were often a flight or more short due to mechanical aborts, and unable to cover themselves with glory like the Mustang groups. Even so, their claims match up to better than their losses, even if you count mechanical losses and losses to ground fire.

The close escort role was taken more seriously by the P-38 groups because of the reduced numbers they had at rendezvous with the bombers. Like the Tuskegee Airmen, they didn't get the kill credits that the more aggressive groups got, but their bombers appear to have taken fewer losses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IMHO it says a lot about the tactics, pilots and the area where the war was fought.. Some parts were hotter than others.. Again, does not say much about the machines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
While we're speaking of anecdotes, why do we then place so much emphasis on the recollections of a few supremely skilled experten who never met (willingly) a similarly skilled opponent? These guys had much more influence over their fellows than any American ace could have had with their colleagues, and if Heinz Bar or Hans Knoke said it was an easy kill, then every little Hans and Franz climbing into the cockpit of an FW or 109 thought maybe that would be safer than trying to light up a Spitfire or Mustang. Even if he never met one in the air, well, the Thunderbolts and Mustangs were plenty scary and hard to take out, so someone else must have hogged all the Lightnings, and all the little _nachwuchs_ still thought it was an easy kill, even if neither they nor anyone they knew ever shot one down in a head to head dogfight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We don't.. Or at least I don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
There are certain assumptions made when you see something unusual. The P-38 was enormous, and correspondingly heavy. The power of the engines with a turbo supercharger is invisible, as is the counterrotating props and lack of torque. Fowler flaps are hard to recognize until you see them deployed and see the effect they have on an aircraft's handling; if you're an opponent, it's too late. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Assumption being the operative word.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Wingloading lift vs drag is radically altered by those flaps, and I doubt that this is treated properly in comparison to other flap designs in the combat setting in the FB/AEP/PF Flight Models. Other aircraft which featured them, like the Ki-43 and Ki-84, are, IMHO, incorrectly given superior maneuverability _before_ the flaps are deployed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For every guys here who doubt's it is I can find you one that does not doubt it... So, should we take a poll and base the FM off of the group biases and feelings? I hope not! I would rather it be based on some flight test data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Lightnings were never particularly numerous over the ETO during the key period of the air war from January to May 1944, and their mechanical woes limited their numbers even further. Lightning kills were rare for the Luftwaffe over occupied Europe, even if they were supposedly easy. The much more capable J models with their more efficient cooling systems and hydraulically boosted controls didn't get to England until May or June of 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the flip side of that coin, not many P51 or 47s made it to the PTO, in numbers, till later one. So, I would expect the P38 to have a higher kill count in the PTO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
We have some pretty strong statements recorded by Macky Steinhoff about the near instantaneous turn of the Lightnings he encountered in North Africa and Italy; he noted that it was a bit sluggish in the roll, but unnervingly quick in the turn or climb once that elevator got a chance to bite. The accelleration must have been notable too, because he said that they were on you immediately after you passed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How immediate is immediately? Is it 1 sec? 10 sec? 30? 60? One mans big is another mans small.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Other Afrika experten had similar impressions against Lightning groups that had been properly trained up in the type, and those guys were flying early F and E models without the Fowler flaps 8 degree setting for combat flaps. They weren't making cloverleaf turns. They were rolling and hauling the yoke back hard and just firewalling the throttles, wingloading or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All very neat story.. Says a lot about the men imho.. Not much about the machines

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Very simply, the other side of the story is that the Other Side had more dead guys than the Lightning guys' side. That's the perception that counts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If your goal is to simulate how the war ended.. Then yes that is true.. If your goal is to simulate how the planes fly.. it is not true.

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 12:20 AM
Tagert. There are no two sides of the story to my post; to the question of, "which planes turns a tighter radius," The Spit turns a tighter radius <span class="ev_code_GREEN">at speed</span>. No question. Read the story. the pilot of the P38 was able to perform a "cloverleaf maneuver" to keep the spit off his six. Not to keep/stay inside of the Spits radius.

In my vision I see this cloverleaf as an unbelievably risky and high skill maneuver. To "skid" around a stall and power out of it at low altitude. Jeesh.

The P38 pilot nearly crashed per the story teller.

The point of the post and the story has a hidden lesson. Most simmers believe the P38 is a dog. Students of the P38 know it to be a very capable aircraft in the right hands. And; simmers here think the Spit is an Uber plane for rooky teens/noobs who cant fly. Not necessarily true.

The issue on "witness credibility" is misplaced. It is way off point and just argumentative. Sorry. LOL. You are entitled though, yes you are.

///The message is; that a skilled and trained pilot who know the limits and envelope of his plane can defeat a superior machine flown a less schooled pilot.

The hidden message is that the developer omitted some very important characteristics of the P-38J25 LO. Namely, Its handleing and performance. Oleg's numbers are withing 5%-10% (below) of known data but its Combat handleing is off. Its been posted to death, including some excellant post by some schooled P38 students. I wont repeat. Oleg has admitted that he "can't" or "hasn't" gotten the FM on the twin engine jobs right, Ive heard. So we wait for BoB.

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert. There are no two sides of the story to my post; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too a degree.. The funny part is, that even when you do have the chance of getting the 2nd side of the story.. As in this case.. There were still two totally diffent outcomes, and thus two toally different conclusions drawn from them.. IMAGINE how much error there is in it when you dont even have a semi controlled test! As in the HEAT OF BATTLE types of dogifights.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
to the question of, "which planes turns a tighter radius," The Spit turns a tighter radius at speed. No question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. in that test.. But at differnt alts and differnt speeds there may be a point where things could change.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Read the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which one? The one where the group saw the P38 win the fight, or the other one where they saw the Spit win the fight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
the pilot of the P38 was able to perform a "cloverleaf maneuver" to keep the spit off his six. Not to keep/stay inside of the Spits radius. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
In my vision I see this cloverleaf as an unbelievably risky and high skill maneuver. To "skid" around a stall and power out of it at low altitude. Jeesh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I have been saying.. Typically these *stories* say more about the pilots than they do the aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The P38 pilot nearly crashed per the story teller. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I had people walk up to me after racing my bike.. And they say Duuuuuuuude! I thought you were going to eat it back there.. And Im like wtf is he talking about.. I was in total control! What might look close to the non pilot bistander might be old hat to the pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The point of the post and the story has a hidden lesson. Most simmers believe the P38 is a dog. Students of the P38 know it to be a very capable aircraft in the right hands. And; simmers here think the Spit is an Uber plane for rooky teens/noobs who cant fly. Not necessarily true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's the man not the machine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The issue on "witness credibility" is misplaced. It is way off point and just argumentative. Sorry. LOL. You are entitled though, yes you are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what your saying.. But I know that in the heat of battle you dont have time to take detailed notes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
///The message is; that a skilled and trained pilot who know the limits and envelope of his plane can defeat a superior machine flown a less schooled pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger That Chuck! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The hidden message is that the developer omitted some very important characteristics of the P-38J25 LO. Namely, Its handleing and performance. Oleg's numbers are withing 5%-10% (below) of known data but its Combat handleing is off. Its been posted to death, including some excellant post by some schooled P38 students. I wont repeat. Oleg has admitted that he "can't" or "hasn't" gotten the FM on the twin engine jobs right, Ive heard. So we wait for BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, been there done that.

BigKahuna_GS
03-08-2005, 10:32 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Zur-TECH posted Mon March 07 2005 15:00
Listen here horseback... If I have to reason with common sense and well thought out sentences... I might as well quit!
There is no arguing that "more than one" corroborating story is a mighty tasty carrot to bite on€¦ problem is one of the most well known P-38 maneuvers (both offensively and defensively) is in direct conflict with these stories€¦
__________________________________________________ _________________________



I am not sure what the problem is in understanding the flight model of the P38. Several aspects of flight parameters are listed in the USAAF P38 Pilots hand book.

For a better understanding of the "CLover Leaf Manuever" please look in Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering book. The manuever is covered in there and Shaw's book is a well respected source of air combat manuevering around the world.


_______

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 10:36 AM
Welly, Tagert, Both stories could be true and/or both stories could be false. So Tagert. I get it. You dont believe the story about P38 doing a cloverleaf to defend against a Spitfire. Just say it. LOL. BTW, I believe both accounts.

Hey, I have a report about a test between a Spifire vs Zero too. Sometimes the Zero won. Sometimes the Spitfire won. In one test, one pilot blacked out, one didnt. Testers used different speeds and altitudes for the test. It was fairly controlled. same planes..different results. If you know these planes you should be able to give the basic results of the tests. (low then high altitude, slow then fast)

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 10:41 AM
Kahuna S!...I have Shaws too. Should be mandatory reading before you post here! LOL

hop2002
03-08-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So what, it was a Griffon engine...it was a only a P38H!...just an exerpt of a famous mock battle.
quote.../////
"During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with the story is it's garbled.

The chances of a P-38H still being on hand and in combat condition at that time are remote, and there's no such thing as a Spitfire XV.

The account appears in a different form in Top Guns, by Joe Foss:

"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 XV 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 XV can whip your best pilot€s ***!€

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 XV 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 XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base."

That's Lowell's version, courtesy of Guppy on the AH boards.

Of course, the Spitfire pilot probably has a different version to tell. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
03-08-2005, 12:07 PM
Whats truely amazing is how one account can give names, time, place, units, and specific aircraft sub-models with specific details of the action. Another account gives nothing but a wild story, and most morons will equate both. Pretty conveniant way to kill all accounts.

There's a reason they relied heavily on test pilots. Slide rules have never developed any combat tactics. LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Airmail109
03-08-2005, 12:57 PM
If the P38 was so amazing, they would not have had to introduce the P51 for escort duty over Europe! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bolillo_loco
03-08-2005, 02:10 PM
at 350mph I think the 38 w/ power boosted ailerons rolled more in the neighborhood of 100-110dps. seen a chart somewhere a long time ago, use to have it, but lost it when hard drive died a year and a half ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

bolillo_loco
03-08-2005, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
If the P38 was so amazing, they would not have had to introduce the P51 for escort duty over Europe! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

guess you have never read anything be biased material. bad mechanic always blames his tools. no point in even responding to statements like this. thats why I gave up on debating fms. you guys have fun and see you around.

Zyzbot
03-08-2005, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
If the P38 was so amazing, they would not have had to introduce the P51 for escort duty over Europe! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget that the government could buy TWO P-51's for the cost of one P-38. That was a major factor too.

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 05:21 PM
Hey Hop_2002. Thank you for the post. I bet you are right. Makes more sense. Nice to see some researce to coorborate or clarify rather than a "debunk". like all eye-witness accounts or stories, There are always minor mistakes in even the most honest reports. for example, once I was attacked by a guy holding a gun over an issue about a girl. After I disarmed him "then the pounding" I told the cops that the quys was brandishing a 357magnun with a 6 inch barrel. it turned out to be 22 with a 4 inch barrel. Things look different in the heat of passion! LOL. Yes, It makes better sense that it was the new L. I'll look for Foss's book. ////////////

horseback
03-08-2005, 05:36 PM
Blackdog, you are waaay cooler than me. The one time I had a gun waved in my direction, that .38 snubnose turned into an M61 Vulcan before my very eyes!

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Yes, there is no Spit XV, they must be referering to the Supermarime Seafire XV which is a "kind of Spitfire" check the link
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/seafirexvgmcd_1.htm

But your story mentions the Spit XV too!. Not garbled. just mistake in reporting. Seafire has similar handling. Cheers.

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 05:53 PM
Thanks Horseback. It was quite a scene. Blood, guns, broken glass, crying girls and cops. I own guns but they scare me when the business end is pointed at me.
////LOL.. I know what you mean about the snubnose. They can get huge. ...........!!!
////At the time I was with a 6'4" 220lb buddy who ran for the bushes when he saw the gun! he didnt come back until the coast was clear. I got cocky and wound up in a bloody fight . I still have a scar. I could have gotten shot. LOL. But, just imagine the pilots who were watching their planes getting machine gunned. its easy to why the stories are conflicting sometimes...Just imagine the laundry detail having to clean the poop out of the flight suits! Cheers BD

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Welly, Tagert, Both stories could be true and/or both stories could be false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, both are true, true or false is not the POINT here. The POINT is these types of stories are about useless in determining if the FM is correct or not.. In that these types of storys say more about the pilots then the planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
So Tagert. I get it. You dont believe the story about P38 doing a cloverleaf to defend against a Spitfire. Just say it. LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, you dont get it at all.. In that I never doubted the first story about the P38 winning the fight. For a short time I wondered about the second story where the P38 lost, but that was cleared up right away. And just to be crystal here.. PONIT is how useless these storys are for determing if the FM is correct or not, in that they say more about the pilots than the planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW, I believe both accounts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BTW so do I.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Hey, I have a report about a test between a Spifire vs Zero too. Sometimes the Zero won. Sometimes the Spitfire won. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
In one test, one pilot blacked out, one didnt. Testers used different speeds and altitudes for the test. It was fairly controlled. same planes..different results. If you know these planes you should be able to give the basic results of the tests. (low then high altitude, slow then fast) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. Depends on how controlled and how detailed the testing was. Othewise it is just another story.

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Whats truely amazing is how one account can give names, time, place, units, and specific aircraft sub-models with specific details of the action. Another account gives nothing but a wild story, and most morons will equate both. Pretty conveniant way to kill all accounts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Specific Details? LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There's a reason they relied heavily on test pilots. Slide rules have never developed any combat tactics. LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Only purpose of the test pilot was to get data for the slide rules to crunch.

Blackdog5555
03-08-2005, 09:23 PM
Tagert, you crack me up! You are too funny, LOL.

TAGERT.
03-08-2005, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert, you crack me up! You are too funny, LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the story some tell

hop2002
03-09-2005, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There are always minor mistakes in even the most honest reports. for example, once I was attacked by a guy holding a gun over an issue about a girl. After I disarmed him "then the pounding" I told the cops that the quys was brandishing a 357magnun with a 6 inch barrel. it turned out to be 22 with a 4 inch barrel. Things look different in the heat of passion! LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couple that with the fact that fighter pilots are not known for being modest or humble.

The thing about real combat is it's usually easy to determine the winner, he's the one who gets back to base, and the loser is the one who's either dead or hanging from a parachute.

If it doesn't end like that, we call it a draw.

In a mock fight, you have more of a problem working out who won.

I'd say that in most mock fights, real or virtual, if guns weren't used both pilots would land claiming victory. The same story told from 2 different, opposing perspectives rarely sounds like the same story at all.

TAGERT.
03-09-2005, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Couple that with the fact that fighter pilots are not known for being modest or humble.

The thing about real combat is it's usually easy to determine the winner, he's the one who gets back to base, and the loser is the one who's either dead or hanging from a parachute.

If it doesn't end like that, we call it a draw.

In a mock fight, you have more of a problem working out who won.

I'd say that in most mock fights, real or virtual, if guns weren't used both pilots would land claiming victory. The same story told from 2 different, opposing perspectives rarely sounds like the same story at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

Airmail109
03-09-2005, 09:29 AM
"guess you have never read anything be biased material. bad mechanic always blames his tools. no point in even responding to statements like this. thats why I gave up on debating fms. you guys have fun and see you around."

Eh? excuse me? But i have read many accounts stating that the P-51 was introduced partly due to the fact that the p38 couldnt cope with the german single seat fighters. I even heard this in a video at the AMERICAN part of the Duxford Air Museum. A post like that is exactly why I dont like conversing with anyone from AFJ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

horseback
03-09-2005, 09:51 AM
Seems likely to me that the Spit in Question was most likely a Mk XIV victimized by typos or poor memory. By most accounts, the Seafire XV was a poor adaptation of the Spit Mk XII, and would not be a likely mount for an RAF Wing Commander sent to show the benighted Yanks How Things Are Done.

About those Fowler flaps; they go from the rear corners of the pilot's gondola all the way out to the ailerons, i.e., on both sides of the engine pods. Extended back and then down 8 degrees in the combat setting, they add a lot of wing area for a minimal drag penalty. In full landing configuration, they subtract a lot of wing loading so that the lightly loaded returning Lightning stalled at speeds that compared very favorably with most carrier fighters.

Factor in the Lightning's accelleration, and that ought to make it a formidible stall/turn fighter in skilled hands.

"Skilled hands" being the operative term...

cheers

horseback

horseback
03-09-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
"guess you have never read anything be biased material. bad mechanic always blames his tools. no point in even responding to statements like this. thats why I gave up on debating fms. you guys have fun and see you around."

Eh? excuse me? But i have read many accounts stating that the P-51 was introduced partly due to the fact that the p38 couldnt cope with the german single seat fighters. I even heard this in a video at the AMERICAN part of the Duxford Air Museum. A post like that is exactly why I dont like conversing with anyone from AFJ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's bit of revisionism, I think. Historians are as prone to fashion trends or fads as anyone else. Look at the catfight that took place at the National Air & Space Museum over how to display the Enola Gay. The directer finally resigned after being raked over the coals by the Air Force Association and other veteran's groups.

There were two P-38 groups assigned to 8th AF at the time the ONE Mustang group was on loan from the 9th AF. Given its proven performance in every other theater, I believe that the P-38 was expected to be the answer to the long-ranged escort need, and the Mustang was thought of as the backup (and a darn good thing it was there, too, in light of subsequent events).

This is consistant with USAAF practice at the time. The P-39 and the P-40 for the same low-medium role, the P-38 and the P-47 for the high altitude interceptor job (which evolved into long range escort job usurped by the Mustang), B-25 /B-26 medium bombers, B-17/B-24 heavy bombers, and the B-29/B-32 super heavies. The Army Air Force had a strong traditional belief in having a fallback plan.

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-09-2005, 11:05 AM
Horseback, I believe your right again. in Fosses book/ account the reader specifically stated the 5 prop "new" Spit. That would be the Spit XVIII. They got the description right..just the name wrong.....That would be something.the Vaulted XVIII. BTW,Do you have sustained turn radius for the P38J-L from the 100,000? I cant find it. I did find more accounts of P-38j-L pilots turn (sustained)with 109 down to 140mph when the 109 had stalled. with full flaps stall was down to 69mph as you know. And Hop_2002, your right, the surprise ending of the stories wasnt that the the 38 won but that the brand new pride of the RAF didnt win! should have gone for 2 out of three! And Aimail101, please DONT converse! LOL. You are only 20% right (you are 80% wrong). LOL. I am being generous with you too. nuf said.

horseback
03-09-2005, 11:24 AM
Regret to say that I don't have America's 100,000; never had the cash available and the book on the store shelf at the same time. From what I've seen, though, Skychimp has it memorized, and has scanned all the applicable charts and graphs into his hard drive for easy posting.

Kahuna seems to be hard on his heels in this regard. I'm afraid that we need to burn the appropriate incense, and wait for these august authorities to respond.

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
03-09-2005, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
That's bit of revisionism, I think. Historians are as prone to fashion trends or fads as anyone else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! Welcome to my world! So, without numbers it boils down to WHO you want to belive.

Airmail109
03-09-2005, 02:27 PM
Okay then......Give me numbers to prove it.....I want too see the weight of the aircraft.....the wing-loading! Oh i also want you to give me reports by test pilots on the 38! I also want to see wind tunnel reports on the 38 please! You say my argument "is just opinion" but the sources the 38 whiners quote may not be entirely trustworthy. Dont tell me not to converse! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif Heheh Ill see about this.......around june/july ill get the chance to speak to a load of warbird pilots anyway. Ill ask them. So your telling me that the 38 could out turn almost any single seat fighter....(as the spitfire was one of the most manuverable)......hmmmmm just a minute let me ponder that.......ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAAHAHARRRRRRRRR RRRRHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHHHAH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Why did the 38 not get more of a reputation then! If it was as good as you guys are making it out to be....why didnt they replace all the frontline fighters with this uber weapon. I mean cmon........if it was more manuverable than a spit it would be more manuverable than a p-51! Does it not accur to you that it might have been pilot error which determined the outcome of that mock dogfight!

BigKahuna_GS
03-09-2005, 03:13 PM
S!~



__________________________________________________ ________________________
Aimail101

posted Wed March 09 2005 13:27
Okay then......Give me numbers to prove it.....I want too see the weight of the aircraft.....the wing-loading! Oh i also want you to give me reports by test pilots on the 38! I also want to see wind tunnel reports on the 38 please! You say my argument "is just opinion" but the sources the 38 whiners quote may not be entirely trustworthy. Dont tell me not to converse! Heheh Ill see about this.......around june/july ill get the chance to speak to a load of warbird pilots anyway. Ill ask them. So your telling me that the 38 could outurn almost any single seat fighter....(as the spitfire was one of the most manuverable)......hmmmmm just a minute let me ponder that.......ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAAHAHARRRRRRRRR RRRRHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHHHAH ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAH Why did the 38 not get more of a reputation then! If it was as good as you guys are making it out to be....why didnt they replace all the frontline fighters with this uber weapon. I mean cmon........if it was more manuverable than a spit it would be more manuverable than a p-51! Does it not accur to you that it might have been pilot error which determined the outcome of that mock dogfight!
__________________________________________________ _________________________




I think that if the P38J & P38L had these specs as they did in real life they would be a very tough competitor.


While we are talking hard numbers here, I doubt the AEP/PF P38J climbs at 4000fpm at sea level or 2900fpm at 23,400ft with War Emergency Power (WEP).


Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines.
(P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10-LO :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed ----------------------421.5mph (WEP)(25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins.(23,400ft)
Service ceiling ---------------------------------------40,000ft



The P38L was fitted with high-output Allison F-30 engines capable of 1,725hp (WEP) rating. (See scan ---remarks below P38J performance tests results). Bodie posts this 1,725hp WEP rating about 5 times in his book. This WEP rating coincided with an order from General Jimmy Doolittle commander of the 8th Air Force for a special fuel blend for P38 operations. This letter is dated early March 1944. (Poor Brit fuel quality was considered to be the source of earlier Allison engine problems)
Bodie also says that the P38L max speed of 414mph listed in many books was actualy a military power rating and not a WEP power rating, that is a difference of 600hp.

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results but unfortunately does not list the actual test curves in his book. I have contacted the USAF Archives trying to get the actual copy of this P38J-10-LO test inclulding test curves dated December 2nd, 1943. If anyone already has this information please send it to Oleg. Also if anyone has contacts at Lockheed Martin there is an identical solo test of the P38L at 60inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm with 1,725bhp (WEP).

Warren M. Bodie was an engineer at Lockheed and an aircraft historian. He had in his possesion information directly from Kelly Johnson and Allison engine specs from the ETO. I got this information from Lockheed but I am unable to obtain any copys of the actual test curves themselves.

Help?

_____

Airmail109
03-09-2005, 03:20 PM
I meant out-turn not out run.....but yes it was interesting! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sure the p-38 was fast but I do not think it could out manuver a spitty!

Blutarski2004
03-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Go here for a lengthy discussion of the P38 - by veterans, judging from the nature of the posts -

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

makes a LOT of interesting observations about the P38 and combat flying tactics in general.

ploughman
03-09-2005, 03:41 PM
Seems it kept pace...at least once. Great plane.

horseback
03-09-2005, 04:51 PM
While I respect 'hard numbers' as much as anyone, I am in the testing business, and in order to get these 'hard numbers' everyone is talking about for a valid comparison, several things have to be true:

1) The pilots have to be fully familiar with the aircraft. Comparisons are useless if the testing pilot can squeeze every last bit of performance out of one aircraft, but isn't sufficiently versed in the other to exploit it to it's full potential. Thus, we have Gunther Rall talking about the younger pilots easing off in their turns with the 109 when the slats banged out (not unlike the British pilots testing the 109 against the Spit saying the 109 was "embarrassed" by the slats opening unevenly-they were unwilling to take it any tighter), or COL Oliver Taylor stating flatly that an average P-38 pilot needed 200 more hours in-type before he was as prepared for combat as his single engine flying counterparts (British test pilot reports about the Lightning were not complimentary in general, but they didn't fly it for 400+ hours -it wasn't in the budget- so in light of COL Taylor's statement, how the hell could they know?).

2) The tested aircraft are in the best possible operational condition. Enemy aircraft were rarely captured in pristine condition. They were most often shot or forced down, or captured because they couldn't be repaired and flown off before their base was taken. Keeping them in good flying condition long enough for the test personnel to become proficient and then test is also going to be a major problem.

Both Farber's FW 190 and Pingel's 109F were lost due to accidental asphixiation of the RAF test pilots flying them. Exhaust fumes in the cockpit, apparently because the exhaust systems weren't properly repaired or maintained. I recall in the Flight Journal article that they had to swap out the FW 190's spark plugs with those taken from a downed bomber, a Do-217, I think. Proper maintenance becomes problematic in the absence of knowledgable technical personnel, a source of reliable parts, or decent documentation.

I can't imagine a lot of captured groundcrewmen of any side were willing to provide their country's enemies with a crash course in the care and feeding of their country's top military aircraft.

3) Testing standards have to be the same. Comparing Focke-Wulf or Messerschmitt's test results, made to a different standard than Lockheed's or North American's, are not going to give you a reliable basis of comparison. Too many things are tested differently, to a different requirement in a different system, and recorded in a different language/terminology.

In a head to head comparison, the tests are conducted side by side, under the same atmospheric conditions, and to the same requirements. You determine the best climb speed and angle for each aircraft, you get their best climb times to a series of given altitudes, because plane X gets to 10,000 feet faster than plane Y, but plane Y catches X at 16,500 ft, but finishes dead even in the climb to 22,000 ft, and is well behind at 30,000 ft.

However, if plane Y climbs at a flatter angle and a higher speed, plane X has no hope of catching it at any altitude.

When you measure turning circle, are you measuring it for smallest diameter, regardless of speed, or is the standard one of time to complete 360 degrees? At what altitudes are you testing? Does the speed at the beginning of the turn have to be maintained throughout the circle? Is the test done both with and without combat flaps deployed? Again, is the pilot sufficiently familiar with the aircraft he is testing to get a valid result?

Accelleration testing is done from a common starting speed, but some aircraft will do better starting from one speed than another. How does one determine the best accelleration without testing at various speeds and altitudes? The advantage in accelleration may well be determined by circumstances not covered by any test.

Of course, head to head tests are valid only if conditions 1 and 2 are met.

Where do the 'hard numbers' come from? Head to head tests conducted with captured or recovered enemy aircraft during wartime could only be indicators, not the hard Gospel Truth.

Company or official military tests were performed to different standards, under different conditions, to different requirements, according to the country conducting the test. Comparing tests made to different standards means that interpretations and guesses have to be made to make a comparison. If they have to be extrapolated, they aren't hard numbers. They are just as subject to misinterpretation and 'spin' (anyone read Isegrim/Kurfurst's posts on the inherent superiority of the Me 109 lately?) as contemporary pilots' combat reports, if not more.

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-09-2005, 06:00 PM
Aimail.. should read the post. word for word. then, if you think you need to, ask your question again. BD.
>

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Where do the 'hard numbers' come from? Head to head tests conducted with captured or recovered enemy aircraft during wartime could only be indicators, not the hard Gospel Truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well first off nothing is the gospel in simulation. Secondly, you don't have to have a head to head test to test a plane.. That says more about the initial state (advantage) and pilots than the planes.. You can determine turning circles, acceleration, etc of one plane at a time. As for maintenance, some things were hampered, some were given an advantage. Take the simply fact of the octane of the US fuel during testing. That and a lot of these test were done in the USA by the NACA and ATC during AND after the war.

Given a choice.. I would take a NACA like test data that was collected on a warm day to figure out (extrapolate) how that data would look on a less than warm day over some combat pilot report that didn't make note of the temp let alone the alt, fuel loads, relative speeds (i.e. E states of each), maintained, etc.

hop2002
03-10-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Horseback, I believe your right again. in Fosses book/ account the reader specifically stated the 5 prop "new" Spit. That would be the Spit XVIII. They got the description right..just the name wrong.....That would be something.the Vaulted XVIII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It couldn't have been a Spitfire XVIII.

All the stories agree the duel happened in 1944, the first Spitfire XVIII didn't fly until 1945, and it didn't begin trials until June 1945.

The Spitfire XIV had a 5 bladed prop, and was "new" in 1944, so it actually fits the description and timeline.

Airmail109
03-10-2005, 06:46 AM
I need to do some more research into the p-38! This thread has intrigued me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I am personally sceptical about a p-38 being able to out manuver a single engined fighter unless it had a situational advantage or the p-38 driver was a better pilot than the opposition. I intend to read up on this aircraft though! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I am going to be at duxford a lot over the next few months so Ill see if i can glean any info from thier! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I am a bit sceptical though!

VW-IceFire
03-10-2005, 06:46 AM
Yep, my bets are on it being a Spitfire XIV. Five bladed prop. Only Griffon engine Spit to serve in numbers.

Been flying the P-38 a bit online. Its surprisingly good in certain situations. I managed to down 8 fighters for the loss of 3 P-38s I was flying last night. So I'm getting the hang of it.

Airmail109
03-10-2005, 06:51 AM
I have noticed that the link posted on the P38 argues that the P38 didnt get compresibilty issues.......it was well know that the 38 was plauged by this problem! I think this better sumerises the p-38..........http://p-38online.com/overview.html http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Vey interesting! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"One of the more interesting stories in the MTO was of the phantom P-38, which was causing trouble for many crippled bombers. Beginning on June 4, 1943, a crippled bomber was coming back from a mission against the island of Pantelleria. The crew was considering bailing out of their bomber when they spotted a P-38 coming closer. They immediately relaxed knowing it was coming to their aid. The crew continued to dump extra weight from the aircraft, including the guns and ammunition. Before the crew realized what happened, the P-38 erupted in gunfire and destroyed the B-17. The only survivor was the pilot, Lt. Harold Fisher. Fisher was rescued and was the target of fury from the fighter pilots by suggesting it was a friendly P-38 that shot them down.

Several weeks before Lt. Fisher's ordeal, a P-38 pilot was low on fuel and was lost. He actually made an emergency landing just outside of Sardinia. The pilot was captured before he was able to destroy his aircraft. Italian pilot, Lt. Guido Rossi came up with the idea of using this P-38 against the American bombers. Rossi's strategy was to wait until the bombers made their attacks. Rossi would then take off and scout around for stragglers. He actually used this technique to shoot down several bombers. Until Lt. Fisher, no other crews survived to tell of the P-38 shooting them down. The American commanders were under the assumption that these missing bombers just did not make it back just as many before them. Nobody thought a friendly aircraft was the cause.

After Fisher told his story, bombers crews were alerted to look for a lone P-38, which was posing as a friendly. Fisher came up with the idea of using a decoy B-17 to attract Rossi. Fisher's idea was approved and he took off in the experimental YB-40 gunship. This was simply a modified B-17, which had more armor and guns. He flew several missions lagging behind the rest of the formations, but never encountered Rossi. Intelligence was being gathered and the Allies finally learned the identity of the pilot. They also learned that his wife was living in Allied occupied Constantine. An artist actually used a picture of his wife to paint a nose art picture on Fisher's bomber, and included her name, Gina. On August 31, a B-17 raid struck Pisa. Fisher was flying among the bombers, and was actually damaged by enemy fighters. He recovered at a low altitude and had to feather two engines. Before lone, a lone P-38 was approaching and the crew was on high alert. Rossi, using very good English, contacted Fisher, just as he did on previous occasions. Rossi immediately noticed the nose art on the aircraft and spoke with Fisher. Fisher was still uncertain the pilot was Rossi and was chatting with Rossi normally. Fisher decided to bait this pilot to see if it was Rossi or not, and began talking about Gine and her location in Constantine. When Fisher was describing intimate details of their "relationship", Rossi lost his cool. He peeled off and began his attack. Fisher ordered all guns to open up on this P-38, and Rossi had to peel off trailing smoke. Rossi intended to ram the bomber, but began breaking up and could not maintain flight. He was able to ditch in the water and survived. Rossi was later picked up and taken prisoner. Fisher was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross medal for his efforts. Fisher would survive the war, but was killed in a transport accident during the Berlin Airlift. Incidentally, Rossi was one of the mourners at his funeral."

This speaks for itself!

"The P-38 was able to take advantage of its speed. It could make quick attacks and gain altitude for another attack. This method of attack created better results that engaging in pure dogfighting. These tactics were based on the P-38 having better speed than either German fighter. It also required close teamwork between the American pilots. Preferred to take either German fighter to low altitudes. The P-38 could out-dive and overtake the German fighters. Normally they achieved good results.

Common German tactics would use a lone fighter flying low as bait. If some P-38 pilots decided to go for the "easy" kill, the rest of the German fighters would have the altitude advantage and pounce on the P-38s. American pilots quickly learned to leave some P-38s flying topside cover in these instances to prevent a German surprise attack"

Blutarski2004
03-10-2005, 08:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aimail101:
I have noticed that the link posted on the P38 argues that the P38 didnt get compresibilty issues.......it was well know that the 38 was plauged by this problem!


..... Are you are referring to the Yahoo archive site? What I understood was that the P38 did suffer compressibility effects during steep dives at high altitudes. But the effects were manageable and a pilot familiar with the P38 was able to ride through it until he reached lower altitudes where the plane resumed stable behavior.

horseback
03-10-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Where do the 'hard numbers' come from? Head to head tests conducted with captured or recovered enemy aircraft during wartime could only be indicators, not the hard Gospel Truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well first off nothing is the gospel in simulation. Secondly, you don't have to have a head to head test to test a plane.. That says more about the initial state (advantage) and pilots than the planes.. You can determine turning circles, acceleration, etc of one plane at a time. As for maintenance, some things were hampered, some were given an advantage. Take the simply fact of the octane of the US fuel during testing. That and a lot of these test were done in the USA by the NACA and ATC during AND after the war.

Given a choice.. I would take a NACA like test data that was collected on a warm day to figure out (extrapolate) how that data would look on a less than warm day over some combat pilot report that didn't make note of the temp let alone the alt, fuel loads, relative speeds (i.e. E states of each), maintained, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There wasn't nearly as much formal testing as some might think. The US cut waaay back on military budgets right after the war, and evaluations of a defeated enemy's prop fighters was not a high priority. They offered us nothing in terms of technology compared to the jets.

Chuck Yeager's autobiography indicated that the piston engine German fighters at Wright-Pat were given a quick once-over, and then most stayed out on the flightline as 'toys' for the flying staff until they became unservicable.

Monogram Close-Up #10, FW 190D, confirms this, saying that two Doras were evaluated over a four hour (compare this to the 30 hour accellerated test of the P-38J in 1943 cited in Kahuna's post) testing period by, I believe(at work, going from memory) at least 3 pilots.

They hated the lack of rudder trim and the need for constant stabilizer trim adjustment; they were impressed by the pilot's overall view, except forward; the brakes sucked (a constant complaint about all Axis fighters, German and Japanese); there was some concern about engine fumes in the cockpit (another constant about LW single engine a/c); the power and handling were adequate, except for the roll, which they said compared favorably with the P-38L and P-80; but they didn't feel that it was as good as the frontline American fighters, can we go to the O Club now and have a few beers?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the evaluating pilots met my first requirement. Yeager was contemptuous of the flying skills of the established test pilots at Wright-Pat, saying, in essence, that they could fly a precise line, but they couldn't figure out how to exploit a fighter's capabilities. He took great glee in bouncing them and beating them mercilessly in impromptu dogfights.

The Monogram booklet indicates a similar initial impression of the Dora among the first units to fly it, but that after a couple of weeks, they were convinced that the Dora was actually more maneuverable and formidible than the Anton. Wartime Allied pilot accounts seem to support this view, as does Yeager in his autobiography (he got to 'play' with the Doras at W-P, although he obviously didn't get to participate in the formal tests).

That's an example. There are more memoirs out there from the pilots who languished in the USAAF and USAF between WWII and Korea (find Gabby and Check Six for two of the better examples), when we started getting serious about the Cold War, to confirm the overall attitude of the Defense Department and the country.

I don't think the money was spent on any serious systematic evaluations of German and Japanese aircraft by any of the services postwar to provide a point by point comparison with Allied aircraft. Other organizations may have obtained these aircraft, and done some testing, but they lacked the resources in combat experienced pilots, spares, and budget to match what I agree the government should have done.

They owed it to all us future simmers.

cheers

horseback

PS -I did identify the Spit XV as most likely a Mk XIV; Blackdog may have typoed it.

(Edited by horseback 3-10-2005, 9:09 PST)

ZG77_Nagual
03-10-2005, 09:51 AM
On the mkxiv/38 incident - I 'heard' this did indeed occur - and was reversed in short order when the command of the mkxiv group re-did the challenge a bit later.

Personally I think turn on the 38 is undermodelled - and compressibility over. But equal pilots in a mkxiv and a 38 my money is on the spit.

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
There wasn't nearly as much formal testing as some might think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! Depends on what one considers formal and enough. Where they tested in ever posiable configuration and every posable situation? No, wouldnt expect that.. Where they not tested at all? No wouldnt expect that either. But what ever tests were done, more can be said about that data than a combat pilot story that didnt record anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The US cut waaay back on military budgets right after the war, and evaluations of a defeated enemy's prop fighters was not a high priority. They offered us nothing in terms of technology compared to the jets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. I only brought it up in that I was suprised they bothered to do any testing of the props after the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Chuck Yeager's autobiography indicated that the piston engine German fighters at Wright-Pat were given a quick once-over, and then most stayed out on the flightline as 'toys' for the flying staff until they became unservicable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad but true.. Lost a few Me262s during the 'toy' joy ride periods.. But even a quick once over in a NACA fasion will recored more data then 100 combat pilot stories combined imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Monogram Close-Up #10, FW 190D, confirms this, saying that two Doras were evaluated over a _four hour_ testing period by, I believe (at work, going from memory) at least 3 pilots.

They hated the lack of rudder trim and the need for constant stabilizer trim adjustment; they were impressed by the pilot's overall view, except forward; the brakes sucked (a constant complaint about all Axis fighters, German and Japanese); there was some concern about engine fumes in the cockpit (another constant about LW single engine a/c); the power and handling were adequate, _except for the roll, which they said compared favorably with the P-38L and P-80_; but they didn't feel that it was as good as the frontline American fighters, can we go to the O Club now and have a few beers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Monogram huh? Well.. I guess I wouldnt expect a modle maker to recreate the whole NACA like report.. Would blow the minds of the kids and cause them to start sniffin glue.. I am suprisd at monogram for including the "lets go get a beer" line.. Shows they must have taken some creative librities in sumarizing what the report implied.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I could be wrong, but I don't think the evaluating pilots met my first requirement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont confuse *evaluating* pilots aka combat pilots that would go fly a captured aircraft to get a *feel* for it with a NACA like test pilot that had recording device installed in the aircraft during a test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Yeager was contemptuous of the flying skills of the established test pilots at Wright-Pat, saying, in essence, that they could fly a precise line, but they couldn't figure out how to exploit a fighter's capabilities. He took great glee in bouncing them and beating them mercilessly in impromptu dogfights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the same could be said of Yeager vs an average joe in a plane he was use too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The Monogram booklet indicates a similar _initial_ impression of the Dora among the first units to fly it, but that after a couple of weeks, they were convinced that the Dora was actually more maneuverable and formidible than the Anton. Wartime Allied pilot accounts seem to support this view, as does Yeager in his autobiography (he got to 'play' with the Doras at W-P, although he obviously didn't get to participate in the formal tests). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeager was not the only one that got to play after the testing was done.. As you pointed out.. Once they were done testing them, they allowed just about any pilot that stoped by to take one out for a 'toy' ride.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
That's an example. There are more memoirs out there from the pilots who languished in the USAAF and USAF between WWII and Korea (find _Gabby_ and _Check Six_ for two of the better examples), when we started getting serious about the Cold War, to confirm the overall attitude of the Defense Department and the country. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]Again, never said they didnt just fly them for the fun of it.. I only pointed it out that testing was not just done in the UK, but during the war planes were brought back here.. Where there was more time (and no fear of a bomber hitting your base) to make sure the plane was maintained correctly prior to testing it... ie an example.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I don't think the money was spent on any serious systematic evaluations of German and Japanese aircraft by any of the services postwar to provide a point by point comparison with Allied aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Post war? Maybe not, but during the war there was.. I only pointed out the post war aspect in that I was suprised that they did any testing of the props post war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Other organizations may have obtained these aircraft, and done some testing, but they lacked the resources in combat experienced pilots, spares, and budget to match what I agree the government should have done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Howard Hughes would disagree with you on that point with regards to his Me262 stuff post war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
They owed it to all us future simmers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Still, ANY testing done imho is worth more to developing an FM than 1000 combat pilot stories.

horseback
03-10-2005, 12:18 PM
The Monogram Close Up I referred to was from the same folks who did some of the best research and publications on the Luftwaffe during the 1970s and 80s, including a very fine (and expensive) volume on Luftwaffe paints and colors that serious modellers still swear by. They were a very authoritive source, based in New Zealand if I recall, and I have yet to find any recent sources that have refuted anything I have found in their publications.

The Monogram toys and models company now associated with Revell has no connection to them, but I suspect you are quite aware of that.

I paraphrased the report, and added the editorial 'can we go to the O Club' line to illustrate the extremely cursory nature of the report. It was fairly obvious to me that this assignment was considered 'make work,' particularly when contrasted with the 30 hour accellerated test conducted on the P-38J in 1943.

Four hours of flight testing for three or more pilots is little more than a spin up and down the Ohio River for each of them.

I mentioned that Yeager was not involved with the Dora tests to avoid the impression that he had been one of the testing pilots.

Stateside testing during the war is restricted in worth by the constraints I cited in the earlier post; they were not in good condition in the first place, spares were of dubious quality even when they could be obtained or fabricated, and the pilots could never be sure that any repairs or maintenance were correctly done-and therefore, be unlikely to reach for, much less find, the outer edges of the flight envelope. Added to that is the problem of shipping and transport; there's a time delay of several weeks to two months, sal****er damage and the dangers of improper handling by the Navy or Merchant Marine.

Britain was a perfectly safe location for test flights of captured enemy aircraft. After mid-1943, there was little concern in the UK about German fighters or bombers breaking up a test, particularly in the northern and western parts of the British Isles.

My post was specifically focussed on and limited to, testing of piston-engined aircraft. Referring to Hughes' testing of jets is a non-sequitor, particularly when you're addressing a former Hughes employee. HH was a little loopy, but if he spent a dime on something, you can be sure he expected to make a dollar or two on it later. I think the record would show that he did make a few bucks on the research.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, never said they didnt just fly them for the fun of it.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was speaking of a systemic neglect of the conventional military during those years...experienced and motivated maintenance personnel were concentrated in a few organizations like the precursors to SAC or in occupied Europe, to keep the Soviets from getting too frisky. Everywhere else, and I mean everywhere, it got really slack really fast. Literally everybody got the hell out and returned to civilian life if they wanted to.

Except where there was a particularly dedicated CO, there was little professionalism required of the regular military units; this was the fallout of the expectation that everything would go back to 'normal' after the war was over.

I stand by my earlier post. The wartime tests were only useful as barometers, and postwar tests that might have been definitive were not done properly, if at all.

That leaves the 'official' test records of the users and manufacturers, and firmly in the region of extrapolation, reinterpretation, and spin.

I prefer the contemporary combat reports that we have in abundance, compared to the known and repeatable parameters of the warbirds we have left. We can build a hierarchy fairly well from that.

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The Monogram Close Up I referred to was from the same folks who did some of the best research and publications on the Luftwaffe during the 1970s and 80s, including a very fine (and expensive) volume on Luftwaffe paints and colors that serious modellers still swear by. They were a very authoritive source, based in New Zealand if I recall, and I have yet to find any recent sources that have refuted anything I have found in their publications. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Paint colors.. roger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The Monogram toys and models company now associated with Revell has no connection to them, but I suspect you are quite aware of that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully, no, when you said monogram I thought you ment monogram toys.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I paraphrased the report, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Paraphrased a paraphased report.. roger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
and added the editorial 'can we go to the O Club' line to illustrate the extremely cursory nature of the report. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont feel bad.. That goes on alot in story telling.. Is one of the problems with story tellin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
It was fairly obvious to me that this assignment was considered 'make work,' particularly when contrasted with the 30 hour _accellerated_ test conducted on the P-38J in 1943. Four hours of flight testing for three or more pilots is little more than a spin up and down the Ohio River for each of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And it should be fairly obvious that it can not be assumed that all testing was of that caliber.. That and you people should not confuse the combat pilot *evaluation* rides with NACA like testing rides that included test equipment to record things insted of depending on the pilots perception of things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I mentioned that Yeager was not involved with the Dora tests to avoid the impression that he had been one of the testing pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I mentioned that Yeager was a good enough pilot that he could probally out do not only a test pilot in an unfamiler plane, but a combat pilot in a plane he was familer with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Stateside testing during the war is restricted in worth by the constraints I cited in the earlier post; they were not in good condition in the first place, spares were of dubious quality even when they could be obtained or fabricated, and the pilots could never be sure that any repairs or maintenance were correctly done-and therefore, be unlikely to reach for, much less find, the outer edges of the flight envelope. Added to that is the problem of shipping and transport; there's a time delay of several weeks to two months, sal****er damage and the dangers of improper handling by the Navy or Merchant Marine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Britain was a perfectly safe location for test flights of captured enemy aircraft. After mid-1943, there was little concern in the UK about German fighters or bombers breaking up a test, particularly in the northern and western parts of the British Isles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not before 1943 and in the south, but I only pointed out that in the states non of that was a consern, more time, money, and resorces to do things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
My post was specifically focussed on and limited to, testing of piston-engined aircraft. Referring to Hughes' testing of jets is a non-sequitor, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My post was NOT specifically focussed on and limited to, testing of piston-engined aircraft and was directed squarly at your comment about "organizations" that they lacked the resources and budget to do it.. Of which Hughes is a PERFECT but not ONLY example.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
particularly when you're addressing a former Hughes employee. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Has nothing to do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
HH was a little loopy, but if he spent a dime on something, you can be sure he expected to make a dollar or two on it later. I think the record would show that he did make a few bucks on the research. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I was speaking of a systemic neglect of the conventional military during those years...experienced and motivated maintenance personnel were concentrated in a few organizations like the precursors to SAC or in occupied Europe, to keep the Soviets from getting too frisky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I was speaking of during the war and just after it and about the TEST PILOT vs. the Combat Pilot *evaluation* type of toy joy rides.. Two very differnt things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Everywhere else, and I mean everywhere, it got really slack really fast. Literally everybody got the hell out and returned to civilian life if they wanted to. Except where there was a particularly dedicated CO, there was little professionalism required of the regular military units; this was the fallout of the expectation that everything would go back to 'normal' after the war was over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And just to restate what I said before.. I only pointed out the post war work because I found it strange that they did any at all.. That is they went beyond what I though they needed to do.. Which was good for us simmer in that thye collected more useful data after the war when there was no pressure and parts and personal were plentful.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I stand by my earlier post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As do I

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The wartime tests were only useful as barometers, and postwar tests that might have been definitive were not done properly, if at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! But even if it was true.. A poorly done NACA type test will provide more info than a 1000 combat reports as to how the plane flys imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
That leaves the 'official' test records of the users and manufacturers, and firmly in the region of extrapolation, reinterpretation, and spin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%! You will find more spin in one combat report than a 1000 official test records imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I prefer the contemporary combat reports that we have in abundance, compared to the known and repeatable parameters of the warbirds we have left. We can build a hierarchy fairly well from that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%. You can build a statistal average of things.. but it is based on data that is missing alot of inputs.. that have to be filled in with alot of guess work.. imho. But dont feel bad.. It is done all the time in all walks of life.. But it dont make it true.. It just makes it average http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blackdog5555
03-10-2005, 03:26 PM
>>Got me again.. The Spit XIV..Settled then. LOL.
>> On the issue of Military testing..War conditions made lengthy testing impossible.

>>A famous example was the B26 Marauder. Was purchased from the blueprints i believe. No formal trials were requested. Much to flyers dismay.

>>Lockheed was considering the Merlin engine for the 38 (at least on paper) but the military brass associated with Allison nixed the idea. Dam... a P38 with twin Packards! (That would have solved all the mechanical problems.)

Blackdog5555
03-10-2005, 03:59 PM
The issue of turning radius:..I cannot get any data on it. Suposed to comparable to the P-63. everything depended on weight, speed , altitude and pilot ability. flaps noflaps, dive recovery temp humidy bla bla..


>>Speed over 300mph. Sustained High speed turning over 300 were usually in the 5g blackout range. So the (any) plane's turning ability didnt matter as much as the pilots ability to withstand G-lok. If the enemy pilot Balck out it didnt matter that his plane could out turn you... see! (seat position bla bla)

>>Speed 150- 250mph, in this range it depended on the plane. P38 drivers were told not to turn fight in this range. You would have a fair fight witrh a 109 but who wants a "fair" fight.

Speed <150. P38s with flaps had a stall sp. of 69mph so there are accounts of P38s turning with 109s and the 109s stall out of the turn. That huge 53 ft wing was good for something.) dumb to get caught that slow but that is where the P38 was best for tight turning. Again, Dumb to get caugt that slow.

>>turning time to complete 360, compared to turning diameter are two different issues too.

The basic rule was to stay over 250mph stay high, and never turn more that 90 degrees with a Zero, With a spit i would think, Stay over 300mph, stay high and dont turn mor than 60 degrees . LOL. Cheers BD

PS; COMBAT FLYING IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN TEST FLYING! From what i read it was always the new guys who were the first to go. 90% of A/A kills cmae from being bounced by unseen e/a. When the dogfighting started, people split for safety. Speed was therefore the most important factor in combat. Olegs 38s are 12-20mph slower then his own numbers.

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The issue of turning radius:..I cannot get any data on it. Suposed to comparable to the P-63. everything depended on weight, speed , altitude and pilot ability. flaps noflaps, dive recovery temp humidy bla bla.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! And welcome to my world!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
>>Speed over 300mph. Sustained High speed turning over 300 were usually in the 5g blackout range. So the (any) plane's turning ability didnt matter as much as the pilots ability to withstand G-lok. If the enemy pilot Balck out it didnt matter that his plane could out turn you... see! (seat position bla bla) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I have been saying combat reports tell us more about the pilots than the planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
>>Speed 150- 250mph, in this range it depended on the plane. P38 drivers were told not to turn fight in this range. You would have a fair fight witrh a 109 but who wants a "fair" fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! True That! Stick with your strengths!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Speed <150. P38s with flaps had a stall sp. of 69mph so there are accounts of P38s turning with 109s and the 109s stall out of the turn. That huge 53 ft wing was good for something.) dumb to get caught that slow but that is where the P38 was best for tight turning. Again, Dumb to get caugt that slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When the P38 turned with *that* 109 in *that* fight what was the weight, speed, flap settings, of the P38 (ie 50% fuel?) and what was the weight, speed, flap settings, of the 109 (ie 100% fuel?).. and last but not least.. What was the altitude, humidity, and relitive pilot skills? Reason I ask is you said

[b]everything depended on weight, speed , altitude and pilot ability. flaps noflaps, dive recovery temp humidy[/quote]

And I agree with you! See what I and others are getting at? Do you want your FM based off of hard data or some pilot that was having a bad day? Or some squadron that didnt have very good training? Or?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
>>turning time to complete 360, compared to turning diameter are two different issues too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Big time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The basic rule was to stay over 250mph stay high, and never turn more that 90 degrees with a Zero, With a spit i would think, Stay over 300mph, stay high and dont turn mor than 60 degrees . LOL. Cheers BD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When in the 38 that is actually the style I shoot for.. pun intended! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
PS; COMBAT FLYING IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN TEST FLYING! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DUH!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
From what i read it was always the new guys who were the first to go. 90% of A/A kills cmae from being bounced by unseen e/a. When the dogfighting started, people split for safety. Speed was therefore the most important factor in combat. Olegs 38s are 12-20mph slower then his own numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is my *feeling* on the subject too.

horseback
03-10-2005, 07:44 PM
You're a hell of a Devil's Advocate, Tagert, but what I want to know is where all this data from NACA and other scientific testing of German and Japanese warplanes is supposed to be.

In three years on these forums, I've seen no evidence of it, just dark rumors and cryptic statements about this or that test which proved the inherent superiority of the Ki-84/N1K2/FW-190D/Ta-152H/Me-109K over any and all aircraft in the Allied inventory. Are they stored somewhere in Area 51, or buried beneath Cheyenne Mountain?

cheers

horseback

Blackdog5555
03-10-2005, 08:11 PM
Tagert! Its obvious you enjoy vigorous debate. But, you kinda agreed with me. Now im worried. And how did i get in your world? Please, let me out!! And Tagert, to add to what horseback said, It truly would be more interesting and would add to your credibility if in your "comments" you would included more than "personal" opinion, inuendos and platitudes. But u do have a unique style. I'll give you that.

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
You're a hell of a Devil's Advocate, Tagert, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im glad you see it that way.. And dont take it personal as so many do around here... Because it is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
but what I want to know is where all this data from NACA and other scientific testing of German and Japanese warplanes is supposed to be.

In three years on these forums, I've seen no evidence of it, just dark rumors and cryptic statements about this or that test which _proved_ the inherent superiority of the Ki-84/N1K2/FW-190D/Ta-152H/Me-109K over any and all aircraft in the Allied inventory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. you do realise that just because you dont have your hands on it does not mean it does not exist?

As for who did the testing.. To name a few..

Technical Air Intelligence Units:
The did mostly jap planes.. Therefore the United States Navy made major contributions to them, which were major evaluation units concerned with tlying japanese aircraft in the USA. The first captured zero was flown at the NAS north island insan diego.. but they had centers all over place like the philippenes and australia.

Air Techinical Service Command:
They had a whole base (freeman) dedcated to evaluating foreign aircraft.. Mostly German and did alot AFTER the war.

I have a few docments from the ATC that did some testing of the Me262. Was that document that many belive proves the Me262 broke the sound barrier.. it didnt, but interestig read.

If you want a good book that will help you in your search and give you a FEEL for just how much testing was done on foreign aricraft during and AFTER the war you should pick up a book called War Prizes. It does not go into detail of the tests, but lists all the test (with the report numbers) and a quick summary of them. It is about 300 pages with about 10 tests listed per page. Do the math! They did alot of testing! To find those reports.. you will need the report numbers.

As for the NACA.. They didnt do alot of testing of the foreign stuff.. But, if you want to get a feel for how much testing of US aircraft went on during WWII go here

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/wr/

And once you do all that.. Then come back and try and sell me on the notion that just because you dont have the report means that they were never done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Are they stored somewhere in Area 51, or buried beneath Cheyenne Mountain? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, just the reports on UFO's are kept there.

TAGERT.
03-10-2005, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert! Its obvious you enjoy vigorous debate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as Friday use to say.. Just the facts!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
But, you kinda agreed with me. Now im worried. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I though it was you that switched and are now agreeing with me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And how did i get in your world? Please, let me out!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With time everyone.. Well hopfully everyone will evolove to such a point.. It is uncofortable at first.. Comming to the realisation that there is more to know out there then you could ever learn in one life time.. But, after a while you realise that it is no big deal. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And Tagert, to add to what horseback said, It truly would be more interesting and would add to your credibility if in your "comments" you would included more than "personal" opinion, inuendos and platitudes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. I was thinking the same thing about you guys! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
But u do have a unique style. I'll give you that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a gift! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blackdog5555
03-11-2005, 01:57 AM
Very very funny...I think i left out "sarcasm" in the list. LOL. Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Very very funny...I think i left out "sarcasm" in the list. LOL. Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And good looking.. Dont forget good looking! Tiz a long list.. But that one is near the top! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
03-11-2005, 08:59 AM
Tagert,

The TAIC did far less actual testing of late-war Japanese aircraft than is regularly assumed. Virtually all of its performance data for the Frank, George, etc. is estimated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As for who did the testing.. To name a few..

Technical Air Intelligence Units:
The did mostly jap planes.. Therefore the United States Navy made major contributions to them, which were major evaluation units concerned with tlying japanese aircraft in the USA. The first captured zero was flown at the NAS north island insan diego.. but they had centers all over place like the philippenes and australia.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Tagert,

The TAIC did far less actual testing of late-war Japanese aircraft than is regularly assumed. Virtually all of its performance data for the Frank, George, etc. is estimated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldnt *assume* that based off of all the test reports listed in war prises.. But feel free.

I only bring it up to *counter* the implication that NO testing was done and what little was done is lock up in area 51.

BfHeFwMe
03-11-2005, 09:55 AM
Yeah, and if these brainiacs with slide rules were modeling a Harrier on pure data it wouldn't ever be capable of using VIFF manouvering as standard tactics. It was the ordinary line pilots who discovered, explored, and refined this 'undocumented' ability as a standard operational tactics. Slide rule geeks never had a clue, neither did the test pilots figure it out.

But no, pilots never have anything to contribute in aircraft performance, sheesh..........

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yeah, and if these brainiacs with slide rules were modeling a Harrier on pure data it wouldn't ever be capable of using VIFF manouvering as standard tactics. It was the ordinary line pilots who discovered, explored, and refined this 'undocumented' ability as a standard operational tactics. Slide rule geeks never had a clue, neither did the test pilots figure it out.

But no, pilots never have anything to contribute in aircraft performance, sheesh.......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lighten Up Francis! Never said pilots didnt figure things out.. Or did things the orginal designer never though of it doing.. I simply pointed out that combat storys say more about the pilots than they do the planes. As for slide rule geeks.. Pilots would have never had anything to fly without them.. As for test pilots, your clearly confused.

BfHeFwMe
03-11-2005, 01:20 PM
Point is you can't simply dismiss all pilot accounts without losing much of the sims fidelity, neither do they in this sim. For instance the negative G carb cut out times for various aircraft, bet a chart never existed, nothing more than a cautionary note was ever needed.

But no chart and anecdotal info only, shouldn't it be removed? There's a few aircraft, like the C-130 that suffered a bug in the rudders, they were never able to track what caused the rudder to swing back and forth a degree or two in cruise, the swinging causing a rocking motion. It's never been documented, just one of those anecdotal things only someone who flew them would ever know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Point is you can't simply dismiss all pilot accounts without losing much of the sims fidelity, neither do they in this sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said all, but I do mean most, in that most dont contain enough informaion to make them usful to judge the FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
For instance the negative G carb cut out times for various aircraft, bet a chart never existed, nothing more than a cautionary note was ever needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A bet you would most likly loose. There was actually alot on that whole neg carb myth.. In that it was fixed very early on.. Some woman actually figured out a way to fix it. Thing is it was such a small problem most of the time that it didnt really come up much.. in thta neg g manuvers are typically the exception not the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
But no chart and anecdotal info only, shouldn't it be removed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of the confliting *storys* whos to say? What ever Oleg decides is fine with me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There's a few aircraft, like the C-130 that suffered a bug in the rudders, they were never able to track what caused the rudder to swing back and forth a degree or two in cruise, the swinging causing a rocking motion. It's never been documented, just one of those anecdotal things only someone who flew them would ever know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, never said they pilot storys didnt identify things.. just to what degree.. Which is what people argue about.. For example, elevator response.. We know the 109 had problems with it.. From pilot *storys* and *testing* but only testing will determine to what degree. Without data you have to take a WAG at it.. HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! But, dont confuse a WAG with a FACT.

Mr.Spot
03-29-2005, 09:37 PM
Seriously, what was it like when the other pilots weren't drunk and putting on a show for the media?

Woof!

EnGaurde
03-29-2005, 10:42 PM
HAAAAAAA hahahahahah

*snort*

CLASSIC

i remember once, making a staggeringly identical point to this one about pilots accounts of the aircraft they flew in, a couple of months back.

i made the point that pilots are so full of pith and vinegar and boasting about anything and everything, that they would greatly exxxagerate any account of flights or the performance of aircraft.

and did just the resident armchair experten set upon me, with vigour ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

now look at the comments in this rapidly growing thread, right from the start about believing pilots....

never ceases to amaze me the capacity of a human being to flip flop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

but at the same time its refreshing to have peoiple stumble onto the original meaning of my post, albeit some weeks later?

unashamed smugness now *click*... ON

F4UDash4
03-30-2005, 01:07 PM
To those whose opinions are not set in stone and who would like to know the truth of the P-38 I would suggest reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743479629/