PDA

View Full Version : why do people say p38 in il2 stinks?



ShaK.
11-25-2006, 11:09 AM
is it because of the high speed dive, lose of control thing?

I have heard people saying atleast that, but the funny thing is, according to ww2 pilots who flew the plane for a living say, THAT IT REALLY HAPPENED with the lightinings.

I hope there is a better argument here than just not being informed enough about how real p38's flew.

I dont fly them in il2, just want to know what people's complains about it are.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

______________________________
SYS SPEC:
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PENTIUM..

Pentium II 233 mhz
seagate 1.5 gig harddrive
8 megs of ram
5 1/4" floppy drive
6" monochrome monitor
14k dial up
Windows Vista

berg417448
11-25-2006, 11:19 AM
The problem is that it only happened at high altitude. The effect is not properly modeled in the game. The P-38 was used as a dive bomber at times:

http://p-38online.com/exp.html

Haigotron
11-25-2006, 11:42 AM
i hear it has fancy flap issues...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/haigotron/il2banner.png
The End is Nigh: The World will END in two weeks...be sure!

LStarosta
11-25-2006, 11:48 AM
They forgot to model the fowler flaps which let it outturn Fw-190.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg
But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LOGFLIGHTS.asp?PILNO=450" TARGET=_blank>http://www.air-source.us/images/Ribbons/AAS.gif
</A>

OMK_Hand
11-25-2006, 11:49 AM
There is a maximum dive airspeed chart in the manual, with three noted highlights which are:

420 mph @ 10,000' IAS
360 mph @ 15,000' IAS
290 mph @ 20,000' IAS

Above these speeds (and any other according to the altitude/speed curve on the graph) you have to expect trouble.

The P38J - which is the one I've just tried - has one line on the gauge at about 360 mph, another at about 420 mph, and loses elevator authority soon after 420 mph just below 10,000'. Is there really THAT much of a problem? It looks reasonably ok compared to the manual.

'Able to dive bomb' does not mean 'able to go beyond the operational limits and not have a problem'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

OMK_Handsome

Keep the Faith.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-25-2006, 11:52 AM
Besides the things allready mentioned, IL2 cannot handle the propellers spinning in different directions. Stallbehavior and low speed maneuverabilitly should be better.

The P38 is also a victim of the snap-roll when hit. Even if it is a single 7.92mm bullet in the wing makes it roll 90-270 degrees instantly, most of the times.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-25-2006, 11:56 AM
I think the P-38 in the sim is a decent aircraft and if flown right can be very effective. It does have some issues that desperately needs fixed. And all those issues have been brought up very well already in this thread. So now you know.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

HellToupee
11-25-2006, 12:06 PM
i say the il2 p38 stinks not comparing to real life one but comparing to others ingame, i view it a lumbering target easyest fighter to fight and kill on western front.

On paper it has good performance not the best but pretty good with climb and speed its the manoverability and size, while u can get into a really slow speed turn fight with it and beat even 109s at any other speed its slow to respond to input aiming is difficult also with such a small field of fire u need to be exactly on target. The size also u just cant miss hitting it 4 cannons mk108s its about as easy as hitting a bomber :P

WWMaxGunz
11-25-2006, 12:19 PM
I want to see a quote that says no matter what you do, you cannot get it past 420 below 10k ft.
That includes full power diving from above.

Well, there is a full discussion of the matter at Complete Waste of Space, they must have
already dealt with all the little details.

Bewolf
11-25-2006, 12:48 PM
The P-38 is one of my top favs and I fly it regulary. The only real downfall is its fast compression even at low alts where this did not occur historicly. That aside learn to fly it and you will have a lot of fun.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

OMK_Hand
11-25-2006, 12:48 PM
The manual clearly states 420 mph IAS as Max SAFE indicated dive speed at and below 10,000'.

"P38L and later p38J airplanes are provided with dive recovery flaps"

Without recovery flaps, maximum dive angle is given as 15 degrees.
With = 45 degrees. There's something to consider...

As an extreme test, on the Crimea map;

In a vertical, full power dive from 5000m, as speed approaches 420 IAS where elevator is getting ineffective, throttle right back and try dropping the combat flaps and start a slow, easy pull out so as to not over stress. don't exceed much over 500 mph or bits will fall off anyway.

The flaps on the P38J take it, and make the difference between recovery, and none recovery.

That's how it seems to me anyhow.
Again, this appears to be reasonable to the operating limitations in the manual.

Cool.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

OMK_Handsome

Keep the Faith.

ShaK.
11-25-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Besides the things allready mentioned, IL2 cannot handle the propellers spinning in different directions. Stallbehavior and low speed maneuverabilitly should be better.

The P38 is also a victim of the snap-roll when hit. Even if it is a single 7.92mm bullet in the wing makes it roll 90-270 degrees instantly, most of the times.

that I did not know.

Thanks for the discussion guys. I'm glad it did not get out of hand, which it could have easily.

I am going to look at waste of time to see what they are saying as well.

I think it is interesting seeing peoples perspective on the plane. I have seen this thread on the matter, which have good points other than the complaint I posted about first.

anyways I was just wondering, thats all. Now to start a why people think the 190's porked? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

______________________________
SYS SPEC:
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PENTIUM..

Pentium II 233 mhz
seagate 1.5 gig harddrive
8 megs of ram
5 1/4" floppy drive
6" monochrome monitor
14k dial up
Windows Vista

VW-IceFire
11-25-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Besides the things allready mentioned, IL2 cannot handle the propellers spinning in different directions. Stallbehavior and low speed maneuverabilitly should be better.

The P38 is also a victim of the snap-roll when hit. Even if it is a single 7.92mm bullet in the wing makes it roll 90-270 degrees instantly, most of the times.
Err...yes it can. Not perfectly but since 4.01 it's handled the no-torque effect of the counter rotating propellers just fine. Old information man...

You can wheel a P-38 into a nose high stall like no other plane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

fordfan25
11-25-2006, 01:42 PM
Its DM is FUBAR IMHO. far to easy to take out controls as well as complete loss of tail section.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

WWSensei
11-25-2006, 01:59 PM
I love the 38. Fly it often on WarClouds and manage to do decent with it. When I fly stupid I get killed.

It climbs like few other aircraft, is as maneuverable at 9000 meters as it is downlow and if flying the L model use of the airbrake replaces the effects of the Fowler Flaps. In the J you can use combat flaps to get the nose up from a high speed dive.

It's got speed for days and is a lot better than people think it is. Fly it like a 190 and it can do very well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

JtD
11-25-2006, 02:57 PM
P-38 in game is pretty cool. Doesn't allow many errors, though. You cannot fly it like a 190 - elevator authority at speed sucks. I usually use its speed to get into an advantageous position and from there its dogfighting abilities to score the kill.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-25-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Besides the things allready mentioned, IL2 cannot handle the propellers spinning in different directions. Stallbehavior and low speed maneuverabilitly should be better.

The P38 is also a victim of the snap-roll when hit. Even if it is a single 7.92mm bullet in the wing makes it roll 90-270 degrees instantly, most of the times.
Err...yes it can. Not perfectly but since 4.01 it's handled the no-torque effect of the counter rotating propellers just fine. Old information man...

You can wheel a P-38 into a nose high stall like no other plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-25-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
Its DM is FUBAR IMHO. far to easy to take out controls as well as complete loss of tail section.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/vmfhavok/theBlackSheep.jpg

LEBillfish
11-25-2006, 03:53 PM
Well due to it being the primary opponent of the Ki-61, I've read many accounts, and though no expert have a "fair/mild" grasp of how the P-38 might perform.......

P-38 seems as spot on as most of the aircraft here.....What most often is not is people trying to fly it like "other" aircraft or contrary to its abilities and uses........

A good P38 pilot and that plane will eat most other planes up here....Yet so will a good Bf109 pilot and that plane, good Mig pilot and that plane, good Zero pilot and that plane, good J8 pilot and that plane, good FW190 pilot and that plane, good Tempest pilot and that plane, good Hurricane pilot and that plane, etc....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

RCAF_Irish_403
11-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Terror of the Pacific.

A glorified artillery platform in Europe

So it goes<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

Longpo
11-25-2006, 05:24 PM
The compressibility is something I really wish to be corrected.

It???s hard to use the P-38 to its advantages - boom and zoom - when you go in for an attack and suddenly realize the aircraft wont pull up.
So ??? forgetting about the enemy aircraft you were going for - you have to apply either dive brakes/flaps to stop yourself from meeting your shadow, thus loosing your speed and energy advantage and end up floundering on the deck like a beached whale.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/calmo/Sig0000.jpg

BSS_CUDA
11-25-2006, 05:26 PM
well for several reasons the first you already mentioned. the P-38 suffered compressibility problems. it was not a speed issue, IRL it was a Mach issue, she suffered compressibility at Mach .69, at 25,000 feet Mach .69 is 478MPH and at 10,000Ft Mach .69 is 507 MPH thats well over the 420 MPH that some quote, hell if that was the case then the P-38 would be flying at compressibility at its top speed of 419MPH. also below 25,000 ft by all recorded accounts it was not an issue because of the thicker air.

second is stall IRL the 38 had a Power on stall of 60 MPH. in game your lucky at 90MPH.

third torque IRL wasn't an issue, in game and I understand its an engine limitation. it does exist.

fourth. DM the 38 had redundant controls that ran down each boom. not modeled in game. not to mention it has one of the weaker DM's in game. it takes nothing to cut a 38 in half, a plane that was know for its survivability IRL. heck I've taken my boom off with my parachute before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif what the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

5th is climb rate in game its about 3500 FPM IRL it was 4000FPM at 70"HG for the J and 3500FPM at 60"HG off by about 500FPM

all in all it pretty well modeled, wish they would fix the obvious provable wrong issues tho. if they did it would be an even better ride than it is now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Executive Officer
U.S.Navy retired

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Mopars/CUDA.jpg

BSS214.com (http://BSS214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

GR142-Pipper
11-25-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
The P-38 is one of my top favs and I fly it regulary. The only real downfall is its fast compression even at low alts where this did not occur historicly. That aside learn to fly it and you will have a lot of fun. The P-38 was pretty bad when first introduced in 4.0. However, it became decent in version 4.02...finally worked out the performance issues and compressability wasn't too bad. In 4.03/4.04 compressability got bad again and really compromised this plane. Things don't just go away and then magically come back again. The reintroduction of compressability at low/medium altitudes was conscious. Why? Well, we won't go into that. Suffice it to say that P-38 compressability as modeled in this game is serious and it's not historically accurate as you correctly cite.

...it's just another major WWII fighter type with a very broken flight model.

GR142-Pipper

LStarosta
11-25-2006, 05:52 PM
It was too much of a threat to the La-7 so Putin had it assassinated.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg
But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LO

carguy_
11-25-2006, 06:15 PM
It is said that in a mock DF vs 109,P38 had minimum of a problem engaging in a low speed turnfight.


I can`t imagine a plane with P38 structure doing that though,sounds like it had a big positive performance margin.

P38Llate - the plane never proven to be a legitimate addition,resembles that P38 the most.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

gdfo
11-25-2006, 06:52 PM
All P-38s are misrepresented in this GAME.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-25-2006, 07:28 PM
Err...yes it can. Not perfectly but since 4.01 it's handled the no-torque effect of the counter rotating propellers just fine. Old information man...

Actually all 2-engined planes keep in the air by decent scripting. Yes, it is better since 4.xx, but the problem remains. But I'm not refering to the torque-effect, but to the stall behaviour. With the counter-rotating propellers the airflow over both wings should be the same. But in game, the airflow and thereby snap-stall is handled like in a one-engined plane.

Better yes, but it was allready said here, the problem is the game-engine.


Besides that, correct, the DM is BravoSierra. One hit and the complete elevator is destroyed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

Viper2005_
11-25-2006, 07:48 PM
I fly gliders. No engine. No torque.

Even so, if I stall, most of the time one wing or the other will try to drop. Why?

i) you've always got some sideslip, no matter how "active" your feet

ii) not all wings are created equal whatever the design drawings may say

iii) turbulence can do interesting things to local angles of attack

Now, if you've got a twin whose props rotate in opposite directions there are even more variables:

iv) engine rpm - chances are that one engine will be turning slightly faster than the other

v) boost pressure - chances are that one engine will be pulling more mercury than the other, especially if you're flat out.

vi) power - as a result of the above, one engine will be producing more power than the other

vii) props like wings are not created equal...

viii) gyroscopic effects. Both engines turn the same way and likely differ only in that one features an idler gear in its reduction gearbox As such, the gyroscopic forces will not cancel even if both engines are turning at the same rpm and have the same weight (everything in real life has a tolerance associated with it)

As such, you should always expect to drop one wing or the other. In general a particular aeroplane will drop one wing more often than the other, and this will often vary across the fleet.

Badsight-
11-25-2006, 07:54 PM
the P-38 required Twice the management

it was an expert plane if you wanted to DF<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

citizenbill
11-25-2006, 08:13 PM
I fly the later model with two .50 gunpods. It's got a great volume of fire and the handling is fairly smooth. You can fly without too many stalls if you're careful. And I've been hit with lots of bullets in turns and haven't stalled out.

It's a good plane once you get used to it.

WWMaxGunz
11-25-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
well for several reasons the first you already mentioned. the P-38 suffered compressibility problems. it was not a speed issue, IRL it was a Mach issue, she suffered compressibility at Mach .69, at 25,000 feet Mach .69 is 478MPH and at 10,000Ft Mach .69 is 507 MPH thats well over the 420 MPH that some quote, hell if that was the case then the P-38 would be flying at compressibility at its top speed of 419MPH. also below 25,000 ft by all recorded accounts it was not an issue because of the thicker air.


Does the unstated source say anything about stick force? Can you trim out of a dive?
Max SAFE speed is less than absolute lockup --- amazing that the two are not 10kph apart?
How long in a power dive does it take to go from damn, the stick is hard to budge to damn
it doesn't matter if the stick can move anyway?

Fork-N-spoon
11-25-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I fly gliders. No engine. No torque.

Even so, if I stall, most of the time one wing or the other will try to drop. Why?

i) you've always got some sideslip, no matter how "active" your feet

ii) not all wings are created equal whatever the design drawings may say

iii) turbulence can do interesting things to local angles of attack

Now, if you've got a twin whose props rotate in opposite directions there are even more variables:

iv) engine rpm - chances are that one engine will be turning slightly faster than the other

v) boost pressure - chances are that one engine will be pulling more mercury than the other, especially if you're flat out.

vi) power - as a result of the above, one engine will be producing more power than the other

vii) props like wings are not created equal...

viii) gyroscopic effects. Both engines turn the same way and likely differ only in that one features an idler gear in its reduction gearbox As such, the gyroscopic forces will not cancel even if both engines are turning at the same rpm and have the same weight (everything in real life has a tolerance associated with it)

As such, you should always expect to drop one wing or the other. In general a particular aeroplane will drop one wing more often than the other, and this will often vary across the fleet.


Here???s the problem with your assumptions as I see it. While you???ve got experience in flying aircraft, you???ve never flown a P-38. Keeping this in mind, when I read the pilot???s manual, pilot???s ratings, and hundreds of other sources from people that flew the aircraft, I have to believe them if they all agree on the same thing. Of all that I???ve read, the P-38 will not drop a wing when stalled unless gear and flaps are down.

The magical number of mach .68 and ???dive restricted to 15 degrees with dive recovery flaps and 45 degrees without dive recover flaps??? is often taken a bit too seriously in this forum and it???s frequently quoted. I???m going to assume that it???s from people that have only read one or two sources on the P-38. When reading other material, I???ve learned that at mach .74 is when the pilot can no longer prevent ???tuck under??? without the benefit of dive recovery flaps and that with dive recovery flaps. Sustained power dives of 60 degrees @ mach .72 are permissible and easily controlled from altitudes in excess of 35,000 feet with dive recovery flaps. The sources are very credible. The pilot???s manual is nothing more than a guideline, but I???ve gotten the opinion that many around here think that the P-38 will lose control, spin, shake, and explode if the dive limits as per pilot???s manual are exceeded.

Shak. I???d suggest a couple of books that you might like to read so that you could better understand your question.

Possum, Clover & Hades: The 475th Fighter Group in World War II (Schiffer Military History) (Hardcover)
by John Stanaway ISBN: 0887405185

Protect & Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in World War II (Schiffer Military/Aviation History) (Hardcover)
by S. W. Ferguson, William K. Pascalis ISBN: 0887407501


Attack and Conquer: The 8th Fighter Group in World War II (Schiffer Military History) (Hardcover)
by John Stanaway, Lawrence J. Hickey ISBN: 0887408087


Vampire Squadron: The Saga of the 44th Fighter Squadron (Hardcover)
by William H. Starke ISBN: 0918837022

Adorimini ("up and at 'em!"): A history of the 82nd Fighter Group in World War II (Unknown Binding)
by Steve Blake ASIN: B0006OVXZ6

An Escort of P-38s: The 1st Fighter Group in World War II (Hardcover)
by John D. Mullins ISBN: 1883809037

The dynamite gang: The 367th Fighter Group in World War II (Paperback)
by Richard Groh ISBN: 0816897700


The "Geyser" Gang: The 428th Figther Squadron in World War II (Unknown Binding)
by John Truman Steinko ASIN: B0006ELCL6

The 370th Fighter Group in World War II in Action over Europe (Hardcover)
by Jay Jones ISBN: 0764317792

The "Backdoor" Gang: The 430th Fighter Squadron in World War II (Unknown Binding)
by Alexander Francis Shennan ASIN: B0006S03ZI

429th Fighter Squadron, the "Retail" Gang: European Theater, World War II (Unknown Binding)
by Karl Swindt ASIN: B0006CZ3FO

479th Fighter Group in World War II
Terry A. Fairfield ISBN: 0764320564

New Guinea Skies: A Fighter Pilot's View of World War II (Hardcover)
by Wayne P. Rothgeb ISBN: 0813808367

Fighter Pilot: World War II in the South Pacific (Paperback)
by William M. Gaskill ISBN: 0897452038

Jungle Ace: Col. Gerald R. Johnson, the Usaaf's Top Fighter Leader of the Pacific War (Paperback)
by John R. Bruning ISBN: 1574884700

Bill: A pilot's story (Unknown Binding)
by Brooklyn Harris ASIN: B0006F6CW4

Happy Jack's Go Buggy: A Fighter Pilot's Story (Schiffer Military/Aviation History) (Hardcover)
by Jack Ilfrey, Mark S. Copeland ISBN: 0764306642

Victory Roll The American Fighter Pilot and Aircraft in World War II (Hardcover)
by William Wolf, Dr. William Wolf ISBN: 0764314580

Fighter Aces of the U.S.A. (Hardcover)
by Raymond F. Toliver, Trevor J. Constable ISBN: 0764303481

American Fighter-Bombers in WWII: Usaaf Jabos in the Mto and Eto (Hardcover)
by William Wolf ISBN: 0764318780

Along with these books, I???d highly recommend Warren Bodie???s P-38 book and Martin Caiden???s P-38 book as well. Once you???ve read all of these books, you???ll understand why people have complained about how the P-38 is modeled. You???re statements about the P-38 having dive problems are true, but the way that you???re implying them is wrong. I???d have to guess that you apparently have neither read much about the real P-38 nor tested the one we have in this game because if you had, you would know that this game has given the P-38 dive problems well beyond what the real one was saddled with.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blondes are for nancy boys. Stop the cruelty adopt a brunette today

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/brunette.jpg

The-Pizza-Man
11-25-2006, 10:41 PM
The 420 Mph IAS at 10,000' is a structural limit rather than a critical mach induced limit. Understandably there would be some sort of a safety factor, but I doubt it's something you'd want to exceed with regularity if it's a plane that you have to fly more than once.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

BSS_CUDA
11-25-2006, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
well for several reasons the first you already mentioned. the P-38 suffered compressibility problems. it was not a speed issue, IRL it was a Mach issue, she suffered compressibility at Mach .69, at 25,000 feet Mach .69 is 478MPH and at 10,000Ft Mach .69 is 507 MPH thats well over the 420 MPH that some quote, hell if that was the case then the P-38 would be flying at compressibility at its top speed of 419MPH. also below 25,000 ft by all recorded accounts it was not an issue because of the thicker air.


Does the unstated source say anything about stick force? Can you trim out of a dive?
Max SAFE speed is less than absolute lockup --- amazing that the two are not 10kph apart?
How long in a power dive does it take to go from damn, the stick is hard to budge to damn
it doesn't matter if the stick can move anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


CC Jordan
Whew ! Outdive a P-38 ? The compressibility King ?

It's been pretty well documented that many P-38 drivers were often afraid to
follow German planes into a dive, especially the 109, which routinely broke
contact by Split-S-ing. This has always puzzled me, because the 109 had a
practical dive limit of about 400 mph--well within the P-38's dive
range--because its controls became too heavy. Much has been made of the cold
weather of the northern European winter being a factor, along with the higher
altitudes the ETO boys flew at. But P-38ers in the MTO also seem to frequently
have been afraid to dive after 109s, and they flew in warm weather and at
moderate altitudes, doing a lot of medium bomber escorting.
In the SWPA, the Ki-61 had similar--if not somewhat better--dive
characteristics to the Me 109, yet no P-38 driver ever hesitated to plunge
after a Tony. The trick in the dive was: throttles to idle before dropping
the nose below the horizon, bank left and right to slow when buffeting began.
Pretty straightforward. In any case, compressibility was not a problem for any
model P-38 if the dive were entered from below 25,000 ft.
One thought is that most P-38 drivers in the SWPA transitioned from the P-40, a
diving sono***un if there ever was one, or P-39 (also a good diver), and they
were used to making terminal velocity dives to save their hides. Both these
planes would yaw quite badly as speed built up in the dive and could otherwise
be disconcerting.
Aside from buffeting, which could easily be controlled, the P-38 was a
sweetheart in a dive compared to a P-40, so PTO pilots who had cut their
combat teeth on the Curtis or Bell never had reason to fear it. If the ETO
boys were entering combat in the P-38, all the shock and confusion of
first-time combat would have been throw onto the P-38, and its quirks
magnified. Just a guess.

> Do you know what version P-38 this was ?

J-10.
Many pilots considered this the worst of the Lightings, despite the much better
intercooler situation. Some preferred the G and--especially--the H, which was
substantially lighter than the early J. Their lighter weight and somewhat
better streamlining gave them excellent initial acceleration and a general
nimbleness lacking in the first of the J series. In the Pacific, at least,
these early models were able to follow the half-roll-split-S and dive of a
Japanese fighter such as the Ki-61, whereas the early Js, being heavier,
generally would not be able to, and if the pilot tried, he could get in
trouble. The later Js and especially the Ls had no such trouble.
My guess is that what happened with the P-38 in the ETO was some pilots dove
after e/a without throttling back first, and when they ran into compressibility
didn't understand or notice (perhaps being mentally fixated on the aircraft
they were pursuing), then became alarmed and confused when the control column
began slamming them in the gut as the whole plane began to shake, the dive
steepened all by itself, and the plane did not respond to their control inputs.
Definitely a scary situation. If they survived, they told their buddies of
their experience in very graphic detail....

this is the best description that I have of what happens with the control surfaces in a dive. by all the accounts I've read the P-38 was surprisingly easy and light on the controls. if you need some quotes I can try to find them for you<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Executive Officer
U.S.Navy retired

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Mopars/CUDA.jpg

BSS214.com (http://BSS214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

Fork-N-spoon
11-25-2006, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The 420 Mph IAS at 10,000' is a structural limit rather than a critical mach induced limit. Understandably there would be some sort of a safety factor, but I doubt it's something you'd want to exceed with regularity if it's a plane that you have to fly more than once.

Could you quote a source for that? It sounds like nothing more than misinformation that somebody picked up at another forum. At mach .68 buffet begins, at mach .74 the pilot can no longer prevent "tuck under" with stick input without dive recover flaps. "America's Hundred Thousand."

Tony LeVier, Chief P-38 test pilot said, We were performing power dives to explore the limits with dive flaps. We were performing power dives from 35,000 feet. The Army wasn't happy with our progress so they made us ballast the aircraft with an additional 2,000 lbs of weight. We would recover from our dives by the time we reached 7,000 feet. At mach .72 with dive recovery flaps, the aircraft was completely controllable. Power dives of 60 degrees were permissible and safe from 35,000 feet down to sea level.

If mach .74 was the maximum limit for the P-38 without dive recovery flaps, I wonder what it was with them? I care not to be advised about the additional 15-20 mph that the pilot's manual states because it???s obviously conservative.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blondes are for nancy boys. Stop the cruelty adopt a brunette today

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/brunette.jpg

The-Pizza-Man
11-26-2006, 12:13 AM
Page 76 of the "Pilot Training Manual For the P-38 Lightning", in fact compressibility doesn't come into play with respect to the VNE until 20,000'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
11-26-2006, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
well for several reasons the first you already mentioned. the P-38 suffered compressibility problems. it was not a speed issue, IRL it was a Mach issue, she suffered compressibility at Mach .69, at 25,000 feet Mach .69 is 478MPH and at 10,000Ft Mach .69 is 507 MPH thats well over the 420 MPH that some quote, hell if that was the case then the P-38 would be flying at compressibility at its top speed of 419MPH. also below 25,000 ft by all recorded accounts it was not an issue because of the thicker air.


Does the unstated source say anything about stick force? Can you trim out of a dive?
Max SAFE speed is less than absolute lockup --- amazing that the two are not 10kph apart?
How long in a power dive does it take to go from damn, the stick is hard to budge to damn
it doesn't matter if the stick can move anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


CC Jordan

...
The trick in the dive was: throttles to idle before dropping
the nose below the horizon, bank left and right to slow when buffeting began.
Pretty straightforward. In any case, compressibility was not a problem for any
model P-38 if the dive were entered from below 25,000 ft.

...
My guess is that what happened with the P-38 in the ETO was some pilots dove
after e/a without throttling back first, and when they ran into compressibility
didn't understand or notice (perhaps being mentally fixated on the aircraft
they were pursuing), then became alarmed and confused when the control column
began slamming them in the gut as the whole plane began to shake, the dive
steepened all by itself, and the plane did not respond to their control inputs.
Definitely a scary situation. If they survived, they told their buddies of
their experience in very graphic detail....

this is the best description that I have of what happens with the control surfaces in a dive. by all the accounts I've read the P-38 was surprisingly easy and light on the controls. if you need some quotes I can try to find them for you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need. Who gets in trouble in P-38 diving with throttles at idle?
Controls surprisingly light even in highspeed dive?
What mach does IL2 P-38's shake and go into nose tuck?
Anyone besides Tagert use trim to pull out from highspeed dives in IL2?
Yeah, that could be dangerous esp if you are holding the stick back and don't let up when
the plane slows enough for control to be as normal. Suddenly you get way more deflection
and maybe bang, the plane comes apart -- time to complain about the DM!

RCAF_Irish_403
11-26-2006, 05:31 AM
I use elevator trim to pull out in any AC once it suffers compression (usually late war 109's and the P38)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

WWSensei
11-26-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
P-38 in game is pretty cool. Doesn't allow many errors, though. You cannot fly it like a 190 - elevator authority at speed sucks. I usually use its speed to get into an advantageous position and from there its dogfighting abilities to score the kill.

At speed it only takes a quick pop of the air brakes and/or combat flaps to get the authority. At slower speeds with airbrakes you'll outturn a 109. It most certainly can be flown like a 190 and I do quite well in it when I don't screw up.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

F19_Ob
11-26-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by ShaK.:


I hope there is a better argument here than just not being informed enough about how real p38's flew.


No one here can say exactly how a real p38 flew.
However there are no question about that there are limitations in the sim, but the limitations ofcourse concernes all planes.
Therefore it's difficult to point out faults just for one plane.

There are limitations in the Damage model versus the visual damage model, wich means that one can get hit and it doesn't display damage on the planes skin, although controls may be damaged.
This has caused lots of disagrements over the years. Sadly Oleg never gave an explanation of these phenomens so it took a long time to get the information.

Views may be modeled differently, so some planes get better view from the cockpit, while others get severe problems to see out.
Some planes burns easily, and others lose their controls easlily, while some loses their tails, and so on.
The problem with damage is that there is a so called 'hitbox' that records hits (when hit) wich means a light machinegun-equipped plane may miss the hitboxes or only get a few hits on many hitbixes and thus not see any damage, while a cannonequipped plane may get enough hit-points with one or a couple of cannonshells if it hits a 'hitbox'.
So imagine tuning all guns and damage to a perfect result.
Not possible ofcourse.


Online on the servers with full difficulty settings the p-38 is in real trubble when engaged by the 109 or fw190 on the eruopean theatre.
The poor roll makes it even 'very' vulnerable to the fw190.
Although the p38 may outturn the fw momentarily it can't hold it for long. A fw190 chased by a p38 only has to roll into the other direction to get away.
I have shot down fw190's when flying p38 sometimes, but when flying the fw I have allways shot down an opposing p38.

The p38's imobility makes it hard to chase and shoot with in highest and lowest speed, and although the fw190 is not so easy to use in a slow dogfight the massive number of cannons enables it to spray in a fashion that enables it to kill easily.
In the european theatre the p38 faces the 4 cannons of the fw190 or the 30mm cannon of the 109. Usually when I have fired a burst on a p38 its been disabled from fighting or dead.
I usually let them go if they survive my burst but they usually wont reach home since a smoking plane is the same as a bleeding creature in the ocean. Sharks will arrive in a moment.
A damaged p38 is usually doomed, while a 109 or Fw190 may reach home.

The p38 ofcourse can be flown more carefully and can use 'drag and bag' tecniques in a team and avoid turning after a pass.
The problem with drag and bag in p38 is that the dragging p38 must fly fairly straight and have some distance to the following enemy, wich is spraying cannonshells.
The reason is the imobility of the p38 wich makes it hard for the following p38 to land hits on the enemy. But if flying 'straighter' one can spray with fairly good results.

-------------------------------------------------
In the pacific theatre the p38 is a fighter as long the enemy consists of Zero, ki43 and ki61.
As long as the p38 doesn't allow dogfights it allways can BnZ or disengage at will.
That advantage will go away when opposing the ki-84 wich can be seen as a better turning Fw190.
The p38 then can't do anything since it cant turn,climb,dive or outspeed the ki-84.
In this case the p38 becomes a bomber without reargunners, like in the european theatre.
Infact the B-25 is safer and it's more likely to return home with a kill.

Some mean they still shoot down Fw190's, 109's and ki-84's and I belive them, because I have shot down plenty of fighters in bombers like Betty, He-111, stuka, A-20, B-25 and Il-2.
That all was possible because I can shoot fairly well and ended up in favorable positions in a multitude of fighters in furballs.
Then ofcourse I have shot down many inexperienced pilots because they didn't know their plane (nor mine).
That however says nothing of the planes capabilities versus its opponents and really can't be used as an argument.


Well, a few thoughts.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

WWMaxGunz
11-27-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
now that being said add to that fact that the G model now does a 360 if half the time of the F.

Where does it say that?
The quote we were given by Blutarski might if you assume that the G will get ahead 180 deg in
the time it takes the G to go 360, but the USELESS QUOTE does not say which plane does the 360
does it? Nooooo, it does not. That's why it is useless, except for fans of course.

Ratsack
11-27-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Has anyone noticed that P38G vs P38F comparison test which is reproduced on the WW2aircraftperformance website?

The report claims that, thanks to maneuver flaps, the G would gain 180 degrees (!!!) over the F in a 360 turn.

Impressive improvement in performance if accurate.

Buhlsheet. There is something wrong, there. A typo or a misinterpretation.

Not shooting the messanger: I just don't believe it.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It's worth noting that the same report classified the P38F as the worst turning fighter in the American inventory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wash your mouth out. You'll be drummed out of the Red White & Blue Boxers club.

@ Cuda: I understand how Fowlers work and what they do. I was and am expressing is incredulity that the increase in turning performance would be on the order of 50%. Granted, it's starting from a low base with the F series. But that 180 degrees in 360 sounds like an estimate to me: it sounds like a way of trying to say 'about half a turn'.

Do we know how they measured it?

cheers,
Ratsack

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-27-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I'm expressing a belief. I don't believe it.
So </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you have a computer and a monitor and a pulse. That's so.

cheers,
Ratsack

BSS_CUDA
11-27-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
now that being said add to that fact that the G model now does a 360 if half the time of the F.

Where does it say that?
The quote we were given by Blutarski might if you assume that the G will get ahead 180 deg in
the time it takes the G to go 360, but the USELESS QUOTE does not say which plane does the 360
does it? Nooooo, it does not. That's why it is useless, except for fans of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Obviously your having a bit of a comprehension problem here Gunz.


The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180?? in 360?? circle) due to maneuver flaps.

it clearly states that the P-38 G will close on the P-38F 180 degree's in a 360 degree turn. so it doesnt take a fan at all to understand what was said. so am I a fan??? without a doubt. but I'm not blinded by the reports. I completely read and undertsand all the strong points and weak points of this aircraft. and will freely admit them. but unlike some naysayers, all we hear is the P-38 sucks or I dont believe the reports just because I dont want to belive the reports http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif how they H3LL do you do that. you have evidence presented to you and just because you dont "believe" its accurate you ignore it???? the reports say what the reports say. denying it or trying to mix words will not change the reports in any way shape or form<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Executive Officer
U.S.Navy retired

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Mopars/CUDA.jpg

BSS214.com (http://BSS214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

BSS_CUDA
11-27-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
sounds like an estimate to me: it sounds like a way of trying to say 'about half a turn'.

Do we know how they measured it?

cheers,
Ratsack

cheers,
Ratsack

it might be an estimate I dont know, but I'll do some research and see if I can find out just how it was measured and get back to you.

but even if it was an estimate if it came "ANYWHERE" close to a 50% increase that in it self is a truly impressive improvement in turn radius<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Executive Officer
U.S.Navy retired

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Mopars/CUDA.jpg

BSS214.com (http://BSS214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I'm expressing a belief. I don't believe it.
So </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you have a computer and a monitor and a pulse. That's so.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The quote we were given by Blutarski might if you assume that the G will get ahead 180 deg in the time it takes the G to go 360, Did you mean to say...


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz and correction by TAGERT in red:
The quote we were given by Blutarski might if you assume that the G will get ahead 180 deg in the time it takes the <span class="ev_code_red">F</span> to go 360,

Assuming that you did.. lets continue


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
but the USELESS QUOTE does not say which plane does the 360 does it? Nooooo, it does not.
Actually it does if you don't take it out of context.. Here is the quote


<span class="ev_code_red">http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-tactical-trials.html</span>:
c. The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180?? in 360?? circle) due to maneuver flaps.
For a moment ignore the parenthesizes in that in English they are there to indicate an insert, an insert that can be removed. Here is the same quote minus said parenthesizes


Quote without parenthesizes:
c. The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F due to maneuver flaps.
As you can NOW see this sentence clearly states the G turns better than the F and the reason for it is the maneuver flaps.

Now lets take a look at what is in the parenthesizes


<span class="ev_code_red">http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-tactical-trials.html</span>:
(will close 180?? in 360?? circle)
I don't know what "close" means.. Sounds like some pilot jargon that means something to test pilots, but not the average Joe. But it is clearly relating the 38G turn to the 38F turn. I doubt it means that the G does the same turn in half the time.. but it could.. I just doubt it. The 38 was not one of your average planes.. As Gibbage has pointed out in the past, the twin booms were slender and the thrust of the props were channeled/guided by they body center that focus the thrust directly over the main part of the wing.. Kind of like a catamaran vs. a single hull boat. So, maybe 50%, but just does not "feel" right to me. One thing for sure, and anyone with half a brain would have to agree that this quote clearly states that the G turns better than the F and the reason for it was the maneuver flaps.

How much better.. That I am not sure of, we might need a time machine to go back and figure out what the word "close" meant to those guys saying it in those days. But, as CUDA noted.. anything close to 50% increase would be great! And would explaine why they said..


c. The P-38G turns <span class="ev_code_red">much</span> better than the P-38F

And NOT..


c. The P-38G turns better than the P-38F

SAVVY?


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That's why it is useless, except for fans of course.
Not true, not by a long shot! Fan or no fan from that quote WE KNOW that the G turns better than the F and the reason for it is the maneuver flaps. Thus not useless quote!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Blutarski2004
11-27-2006, 07:41 PM
Check yr PM<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Ratsack
11-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I'm expressing a belief. I don't believe it.
So </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you have a computer and a monitor and a pulse. That's so.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
and

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 09:07 PM
So<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

GR142-Pipper
11-27-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I don't know what "close" means.. Sounds like some pilot jargon that means something to test pilots, but not the average Joe. "Close" is this context means that one aircraft is gaining angles on the other (to wit: he's "closing" on the opponent's six).

GR142-Pipper

gkll
11-27-2006, 11:26 PM
Is it possible that some of this disagreement concerning g vs f turning rates might be because in RL the advantage was in quite low speed flight (eg 220 k)? And some of the naysayers to the 1/2 turn advantage are imagining turns up around say 350 k?

The RL advantage to the fowlers was for all speeds I believe, but they might have been particularly influential at the low speeds the 38 was known for?

EDIT < never mind... I checked a source the 38 had fowlers from the start. Ill read the whole post as right now I can't imagine the refinement that would lead to such a radical change in turn rate... sorry for wasting airtime>

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

So

on and

WWMaxGunz
11-28-2006, 12:10 AM
I know that it means the G turned faster **with flaps down**.

How much faster? The G will gain 180 degrees in the time it takes which one to go 360?
It .. doesn't .. say.

What that line is with or without parenthesis is what people with more than half smarts
call "loose wording".

Looks to me like the G will gain 180 in the time it takes the F to go 360, a 50% increase.
But that's just looks-like.
Anyone who writes so loosely, I wouldn't take numbers from but would go looking for the
source of those numbers as the statement is otherwise an anecdotal guesstimate, aka useless.

But yeah , du-uhhhh, you can milk out the turned faster part.

Taggie, are you so hard-T-F-up to jump on somebody that you gotta misinterpret what I wrote?
Look, get your morning beer or whatever down and then re-read, okay?

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I know that it means the G turned faster **with flaps down**.

How much faster? The G will gain 180 degrees in the time it takes which one to go 360?
It .. doesn't .. say. You're kidding, right? Gunz...there are only two planes being discussed here, a P-38G and a P-38F. It's pretty clear that if it takes the P-38F x seconds to go 360 degrees in the referenced test it will take the P-38G .5x seconds to do likewise. Seriously, are you not seeing this?

GR142-Pipper

fordfan25
11-28-2006, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

So

on and </div></BLOCKQUOTE>on<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Viper2005_
11-28-2006, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

And that would be mach .8-.85 while trying to maneuver, as in pull out of a dive?
I think not. That would be a never tested live as in estimated speed to breakup of a P-38
with no other stress than forward drag.


Nope. P-38 tucks under at high Mach number. Above Mach 0.68 you start to run out of elevator. The general consensus in this debate is that you've run out of elevator by about Mach 0.74. Therefore if you go any faster, you'll start to pull negative g even with full up elevator applied.

At Mach 0.85 it's quite possible to envisage a situation in which the negative g load imposed exceeds the strength of the aeroplane if sufficient dynamic pressure is available.

As for the F vs G debate, the language is far from clear since we are not told who makes the full 360?? turn.

If the P-38F makes the full 360?? turn, then the P-38G must have turned through 360??+180??, and therefore has a 50% turn rate advantage due to flap.

If the P-38G has made a 360?? turn then the P-38F has only turned through 180??, and therefore the P-38G has a 100% turn rate advantage due to flap. That's a big difference. Personally my money would be on the former, but it would be nice to know one way or another so that we can start to get a handle on exactly how effective the P-38's much praised flaps really were.

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

So

on and </div></BLOCKQUOTE>on </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hooray. I thought Pavlov's dog over there was never going to catch on.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
...
As for the F vs G debate, the language is far from clear since we are not told who makes the full 360?? turn.

If the P-38F makes the full 360?? turn, then the P-38G must have turned through 360??+180??, and therefore has a 50% turn rate advantage due to flap.

If the P-38G has made a 360?? turn then the P-38F has only turned through 180??, and therefore the P-38G has a 100% turn rate advantage due to flap. That's a big difference. Personally my money would be on the former, but it would be nice to know one way or another so that we can start to get a handle on exactly how effective the P-38's much praised flaps really were.

Thank you. I was about to start trying to explain it using algebra.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - If it's the former, I would like to see more than a single reference to it to be convinced.

PPS - If it's meant to mean the latter, I stand by my initial statement: buhlsheet.

The-Pizza-Man
11-28-2006, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Page 76 of the "Pilot Training Manual For the P-38 Lightning", in fact compressibility doesn't come into play with respect to the VNE until 20,000'.

I???ve flicked through the pilot???s manual for the P-38 and I could not find any place that supports your original statements that ???420mph IAS was the structural limit rather than a critical mach induced limit.??? What I did find was that the pilot???s manual stated that above 420 mph IAS at 10,000 feet is where the pilot should begin to expect the onset of compressibility. The pilot???s manual stated that buffeting and tuck under would begin to happen if this speed was exceeded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without getting into the debate about the P-38 in game, which is an argument I have no interest in participating in, look at this chart. http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7378/p38diveyb8.jpg

Compressibility is dependent on mach number, as you can clearly see the VNE is not related to mach number below 20,000'. Thus it must be a VNE set for conventional structural reasons. VNE's aren't set just for fun, there are valid engineering reasons for them to be as such. If the pilot chooses to exceed them he is off the reservation and there is no guarantee that the plane will function, continue to function or fall apart.

I don't see any problems with what I've posted thus far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly, the problem was that I called you on something that you said. You said that exceeding X speed was a structural limitations. I took this as meaning the airframe would fail. While it???s true that the airframe will fail, it won???t happen at mach .65, the placarded limit in the pilot???s manual. The P-38 will lose control well before it breaks up. I???ve a chart that shows that at mach .8 ??? mach .85 is when the P-38???s airframe will fail. Before somebody thinks that I???m saying that the P-38 was safe up to this speed, I???m not, I???m simply stating that from the charts and tests that I???ve seen, the airframe will fail at mach .8 - .85. obviously, the aircraft will become uncontrollable well before the airframe fails.

Pizzaman, what I???m not sure what you???re stuck on. Yes you???ve provided a chart, a chart that any P-38 enthusiast is well familiar with, but it provides no basis as to when compressibility begins, when buffet begins, when tuck under begins, when the aircraft becomes uncontrollable, or when the airframe will fail. All it states is that these speeds are safe and exceeding them tuck under and buffeting will be encountered. That???s pretty vague??? I???ve provided that data and all you do is keep bringing up ???they make the charts for a reason, going beyond them you???re off the reservations, etc.??? All that tells me is that???s your opinion and you???ve provided no proof as to when it happens beyond the speed on the chart.

There???s plenty of data out there that goes into far more detail than the simple chart from the pilot???s manual. The glaring error I see in the pilot???s manual is the bogus 20 mph figure that may be added to IAS for a safe dive speed. It???s bogus because 20 mph IAS at sea level is about 20 mph TAS, however adding 20 mph at 35,000 feet isn???t 20 mph TAS, it???s several times higher. The pilot???s manual isn???t the last word, it???s a guideline nothing more. It gives an inexperienced pilot some idea about what he could expect when flying the aircraft.

We???re, collectively speaking members of this forum, talking about the discrepancies of the in game P-38 and the real one. If you look at the line on the chart that you???ve provided, that???s the speed when the P-38 that we have in this game becomes uncontrollable. The chart you???ve provided proves that at the max speed or below, no compressibility is encountered. Well before that speed is reached in this game, the P-38 enters compressibility. It???s a glaring error in this game that few if any other aircraft suffer from, but there are a few. Quite frankly, I???m surprised the nancy boy Spitfire fans haven???t jumped all over the Spitfire???s low critical mach in this game and the Corsair is another that comes to mind. What???s the deal with the Fw-190A6 having a lower critical mach than the Fw-190A9? It???s the same flippin airframe! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point of my original post was simple. All I said was that the 420 mph IAS VNE at 10,000' is not related to compressibility as it's a constant velocity figure not a constant mach figure. As clearly indicated by that chart. My first guess was that it was imposed for structural reasons, however, it might be for controllability or some other reason. For whatever reason the VNE is a result of conventional subsonic flight and is not a result of transonic effects.

I also said that that particular number would no doubt have some safety factor on it. However, once that safety factor is exceeded it is very likely to cause damage of some degree to the plane. It most likely won't break apart immediately but it will probably have a severe impact on the fatigue life of the plane. This may cause it to fail unexpectedly.

What I'm not trying to do is argue that the in game P-38 is accurate. I don't fly it in IL-2 enough and I haven't done the flight tests to make a judgement. However, from what you've been saying the P-38 ingame is infact porked.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg