PDA

View Full Version : P38L LATE: Will the MP be increased from 66"MP to 75"MP?



Pages : [1] 2

AKA_TAGERT
01-06-2006, 07:40 PM
Found this

Report showing the P38 using 150 octane was cleared for 75"MP (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html)

So? Will the P38L LATE be increased from the current 66"MP to 75"MP or at least 70"MP?

VW-IceFire
01-06-2006, 11:02 PM
Forgive me...I thought the in-game version already was? I understand the guage was not modified but that it was running at 70 or 75?

AKA_TAGERT
01-06-2006, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Forgive me...I thought the in-game version already was? I understand the guage was not modified but that it was running at 70 or 75? Roger, guage was fudge.. but the performace is of a 1720hp P38. Oleg never mentioned the coresponding MP value.. Probally because he knew he was going to fudge the guage.. Thus he just mentioned the horse power.. i.e. in the read me it states.

Readme_v4.01:
2) The P-38L with 1720 hp engines €" about 2,000 aircraft of this type were produced and used on both European and Pacific theaters.
Thing is, the 1720hp value is obtained at 66"MP, therefore you would obtain more horse power using 70" or 75"MP, thus my question.. "Will the MP be increased from 66"MP to 75"MP?"

But..

To keep in line with Oleg's fudging of the MP guage.. I should have just asked "Will the horse power be increased from 1720hp to 1720hp+ ?"

JtD
01-07-2006, 12:30 AM
I don't get it. Where exactly does it say the P-38 were used with 75" instead of 66"?

Aaron_GT
01-07-2006, 02:17 AM
Tagert, the important thing is not whether or not it was cleared for 75" with 150 octane. The question is was it USED with that boost in practice? The 190K4 was cleared for 1.98 ATA, but the evidence so if 75" in the P38 is ok, then there is a legitimate case for a 1.98ATA 109K4. I've seen no evidence for 1.98 ATA being used in a 109, though, so I don't think it should be in the game.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I don't get it. Where exactly does it say the P-38 were used with 75" instead of 66"? So, what part of the link did you not understand? It clearly states 70€MP and implies that 75€MP is within range.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert, the important thing is not whether or not it was cleared for 75" with 150 octane. The question is was it USED with that boost in practice? Aaron_GT, the important thing is not whether or not it was cleared for 75" with 150 octane. The fact is that many pilot's USED higher than rated boost even before it was cleared.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The 190K4 was cleared for 1.98 ATA, but the evidence so if 75" in the P38 is ok, then there is a legitimate case for a 1.98ATA 109K4. I've seen no evidence for 1.98 ATA being used in a 109, though, so I don't think it should be in the game. Roger, the 1.98 does not have a suppoting link I provided, where it says the conversion kits are on the way and that it will be switched to 70" soon. Maybe the 109 could have used it.. had we not blown up all thier fuel processing plants, but I digress. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All in all guys, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fanticy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?

JtD
01-07-2006, 09:29 AM
The only thing I can see is that "The range is 60-66 however by the change of plugs the range can be 70-75 inches."

A lot of stuff "can be".

The next sentence says "they", what ever "they" are, are currently set at 65 and will "probably soon be changed" to 70. As manifold pressures were not set to 65 "they" must be a reference to the spark plugs, but how do you "set" plugs?

But even if it was mp, how do you get from a note on 150 grade fuel that states "can be" and "probably soon be changed to" to a report that says the P-38 was cleared for 75"?

Like I said, I don't get it.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The only thing I can see is that "The range is 60-66 however by the change of plugs the range can be 70-75 inches."

A lot of stuff "can be".

The next sentence says "they", what ever "they" are, are currently set at 65 and will "probably soon be changed" to 70. As manifold pressures were not set to 65 "they" must be a reference to the spark plugs, but how do you "set" plugs?

But even if it was mp, how do you get from a note on 150 grade fuel that states "can be" and "probably soon be changed to" to a report that says the P-38 was cleared for 75"?

Like I said, I don't get it. So, what part of

"Modification kits are made up and are at present in the States. The changes <span class="ev_code_yellow">to be made</span> for the use of this fuel are as follows"

Did you not *get*? We know they use 150 fuel, thus the changes were made, thus 70 to 75"MP was obtaiable.

But, that is neither here nor there, My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fanticy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?

JtD
01-07-2006, 09:58 AM
So you don't think they would replace spark plug "set" to 65 with spark plugs "set" to 70 because they were experiencing troubles with the 65er when running at 66" - as pointed out in other related documents - and left the mp at 66"?

Also, I understand you quote as follows

"Modification kits are made up and are at present in the States. The changes to be made for the use of this fuel are as follows"

This is not the same as "we made the following changes and now our ac are flying with a mp of 75" instead of 60"".

Hetzer_II
01-07-2006, 10:16 AM
Targert is searching for more performance where ever he can get... its for hide his problems in flying-skill ;-)

BTW: The P38L which we already have is a real killer.... its faster then k4 down low... can turn with almost everything and climbs like a rocket... you want more?

Grey_Mouser67
01-07-2006, 10:21 AM
To me, the real issue is not with the Late, but rather the regular L and J. Those two aught to perform in terms of speed, dive and climb identical and while the sea level speed of the J is a bit high, the high altitude speed of both are badly off...the climb has been well documented as has the compressibility/elevator issues.

I'd like to see Oleg fix the regular L or just remove it from the list...as long as it is there, some online map maker will include it as a viable 1944 aircraft which it is not as is. The Lightning has had issues from its inception and while I have noticed Oleg has tweaked a couple of things, he still continues to ignore the most important shortcomings...stall/stability, elevator authority, climb, top end speed.

The plane was not an uber plane...should not be, never was....but it should be competitive and it should be the kind of plane you don't want on your six oclock or B&Z you....the L late is competitive, no doubt about it, but none of them are good Boomers at this time.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
So you don't think they would replace spark plug "set" to 65 with spark plugs "set" to 70 because they were experiencing troubles with the 65er when running at 66" - as pointed out in other related documents - and left the mp at 66"? What you *think* I *think* does not mater, what I *said* does, and all I said was the P38 could obtain 75"MP with 150 oct fuel.


Originally posted by JtD:
Also, I understand you quote as follows

"Modification kits are made up and are at present in the States. The changes to be made for the use of this fuel are as follows"

This is not the same as "we made the following changes and now our ac are flying with a mp of 75" instead of 60"". Disagree 100%

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Targert is searching for more performance where ever he can get... its for hide his problems in flying-skill ;-) Hardly, in a one on one I can go toe to toe with the best in any plane in my P38L LATE. As I already said, My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?


Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
BTW: The P38L which we already have is a real killer.... its faster then k4 down low... can turn with almost everything and climbs like a rocket... you want more? I want what everyone wants in their plane.. realism. If the P38 was allowed to run at 75"MP, than it should be allowed to.. but, I don€t need 75"MP to pwne 95% of the people online, 66"MP is more than enough for 95% of them noobs that under estimate the 8 and me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hetzer_II
01-07-2006, 10:59 AM
OT: If you want realism look at the 39 and 63 family... ;-)

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:07 AM
"Can be"

"Probably"


Target's order here does nothing at all to actually prove the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 grade fuel.

We do have proof of several things to the contrary however:

1. By the time the 8th AF was using 150 grade fuel on any real scale, the P-38 was already kicked out of the 8th AF, and transfered to the 9th AF where it flew mainly tactical missions.

2. The 9th AF did not recieve 150 grade fuel.

3. The 8th AF did experiment with 150 grade fuel for the P-38, and there is no evidence I have read from Roger Freeman, Francis Dean, or any veteran P-38 pilot that it was successfully implemented.

To the contrary:

"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


-Major General Ed Giller, USAF.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
To me, the real issue is not with the Late, but rather the regular L and J. Those two aught to perform in terms of speed, dive and climb identical and while the sea level speed of the J is a bit high, the high altitude speed of both are badly off...the climb has been well documented as has the compressibility/elevator issues. Roger.. I just posted this for the naysayers.. Dont expect anything to come of it.. The real crime is the J and normal L performance.. In 4.01 the IAS speed of the J was perfect, but the TAS was too high by about 30mph at sea level. Have not check it in 4.02, so that might have been fixed in that the Ki61 sea level testing shows that IAS = TAS at sea level now, as it should be.


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I'd like to see Oleg fix the regular L or just remove it from the list...as long as it is there, some online map maker will include it as a viable 1944 aircraft which it is not as is. Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The Lightning has had issues from its inception and while I have noticed Oleg has tweaked a couple of things, he still continues to ignore the most important shortcomings...stall/stability, elevator authority, climb, top end speed. Agreed 100% on everything but stability.. all the P38s are stable gun platforms.. well relitive to the single engines.. As it should be.


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The plane was not an uber plane... should not be, never was.... but it should be competitive and it should be the kind of plane you don't want on your six oclock or B&Z you.... the L late is competitive, no doubt about it, but none of them are good Boomers at this time. Agreed 100% wrt the J, due to the onset of compresability being too soon speed wise.. but the L's dive break allows me to BnZ with the best of them.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
"Can be"

"Probably"


Target's order here does nothing at all to actually prove the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 grade fuel. Well, your right, it does not mater what I or you think.. But clearly Oleg knows something that shows he 38 was cleard for 150 grade fuel, and that is good enough for me.

Aaron_GT
01-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Aaron_GT, the important thing is not whether or not it was cleared for 75" with 150 octane. The fact is that many pilot's USED higher than rated boost even before it was cleared.

Then that would be the evidence to post, not what you posted the link to.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:19 AM
More from Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Manual:

"Another approach was the use of the new 150 octane grade fuel which was tested in two 55th Group P-38Js during the same month in the hope of improving performance."


SAAVY?


In conclusion:

"By March VIII FC had become somewhat disillusioned with the P-38 because of the high number of abortives through mechanical failures on almost every mission...faced with continuing technical problems a decision was taken to convert all P-38 groups to P-51s"

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron_GT, the important thing is not whether or not it was cleared for 75" with 150 octane. The fact is that many pilot's USED higher than rated boost even before it was cleared.

Then that would be the evidence to post, not what you posted the link to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
More from Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Manual:

"Another approach was the use of the new 150 octane grade fuel which was tested in two 55th Group P-38Js during the same month in the hope of improving performance."


SAAVY?


In conclusion:

"By March VIII FC had become somewhat disillusioned with the P-38 because of the high number of abortives through mechanical failures on almost every mission...faced with continuing technical problems a decision was taken to convert all P-38 groups to P-51s" Roger, dicision time, belive you or Oleg and the links I posted.. Hmmmm Ill have to go with Oleg on this one, thanks!

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Well, your right, it does not mater what I or you think.. But clearly Oleg knows something that shows he 38 was cleard for 150 grade fuel, and that is good enough for me.


Why do you say that?

150 octane was not necessary for a boost pressure of 66".

And the Allison engines used Champion spark plugs which were a big problem with 150 grade fuel at the time.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Well, your right, it does not mater what I or you think.. But clearly Oleg knows something that shows he 38 was cleard for 150 grade fuel, and that is good enough for me.


Why do you say that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? Because I think Oleg knows more about it than you do


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
150 octane was not necessary for a boost pressure of 66".

And the Allison engines used Champion spark plugs which were a big problem with 150 grade fuel at the time. You do realise that spark plugs are easy to replace, and were replaced reguarly? Did you even bother to read the link b4 you replied? It clealy states that part of the upgrade kit is new spark plugs. Jezz, take a deep breath and count to 10 before you reply! Than you wouldnt look so ignorant!

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Roger, dicision time, belive you or Oleg and the links I posted.. Hmmmm Ill have to go with Oleg on this one, thanks!


Right, and your links do not prove that the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 grade fuel.

Oh, and where is Oleg ever quoted as saying the P-38 was cleared for 150 grade, please link to the quote.

p1ngu666
01-07-2006, 11:31 AM
75" MP would give it 1955hp? thats around 10% extra power

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Right, and your links do not prove that the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 grade fuel. Disagree 100%


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Oh, and where is Oleg ever quoted as saying the P-38 was cleared for 150 grade, please link to the quote. Open up your readme file for the version where the LATE was added and note that the part about the 1720hp P38s. If not the fuel.. and no change in the engines.. then what? Fw190 pixi dust?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:34 AM
How easy was it to change an engine after 90 minutes flight time Tagert?


"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


-Major General Ed Giller, USAF.[/QUOTE]



Still waiting for proof that the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 octane and flown on ops. and flown at the MAP of 70-75" you are asking for.

I haven't seen any yet.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
75" MP would give it 1955hp? thats around 10% extra power Not sure about 1955hp, but, looking at real world test data, going from 60.00"MP to 60.80"MP made a noticeable/measurable difference in the ROC

Brain32
01-07-2006, 11:34 AM
A question for P38 experts: How much speed could P38 endure in a dive?
Today I reached over 1000Km/h without braking the plane, I used airbrake to aid pulling up...

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Still waiting for proof that the P-38 was ever cleared for 150 octane and flown on ops. and flown at the MAP of 70-75" you are asking for.

I haven't seen any yet. Not my fault you can not navigate to the link and/or read. But dont take my word for it, take Oleg's word for it in that the LATE does exist in the game. SAVVY? Also note that nobody is saying that there were not problems at first, only that the problems were fixed. Now I know that hurts, but, look at the bright side, at least now you know that spark plugs were easy to change.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
no change in the engines.. then what? Fw190 pixi dust?


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif No changes to the engines?

I suggest you read a little more on the development of the Allison V-1710.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif No changes to the engines?

I suggest you read a little more on the development of the Allison V-1710. No, I sugest you read A LOT more on the difference between the L and L LATE engines.. none, nada, zip! Only difference, 150 fuel and spak plugs and a few other bolt on/off items in the kit. SAVVY?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Not my fault you can not navigate to the link and/or read. But dont take my word for it, take Oleg's word for it in that the LATE does exist in the game. SAVVY? Also note that nobody is saying that there were not problems at first, only that the problems were fixed. Now I know that hurts, but, look at the bright side, at least now you know that spark plugs were easy to change.



1. There is no proof that the P-38 was cleared for 150 grade fuel, and you have not provided any at all. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that it was tested, and the test was a failure.

2. Show me where it is Tagert, that those "initial problems" were solved.

I would like to see your proof - so far there isn't any at all.

How easy was it to change an engine after 90 miutes flight time Tagert?

How easy was it to change a plug that was "so fully leaded that it looked like a solid piece"?


Oleg's inclusion of a P-38"Late" has nothing to do with 150 grade avgas.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
1. There is no proof that the P-38 was cleared for 150 grade fuel, and you have not provided any at all. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that it was tested, and the test was a failure. Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. So much so that even Oleg, who is hard to convice, saw enough of it to make the P38L LATE which has the same engines as the P38L, the only difference is the 150 fuel allowed those same engines to produce more horse power.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
2. Show me where it is Tagert, that those "initial problems" were solved.

I would like to see your proof - so far there isn't any at all. Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. So much so that even Oleg, who is hard to convice, saw enough of it to make the P38L LATE which has the same engines as the P38L, the only difference is the 150 fuel allowed those same engines to produce more horse power.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
How easy was it to change an engine after 90 miutes flight time Tagert?

How easy was it to change a plug that was "so fully leaded that it looked like a solid piece"? No need to switch out engines, the problem was solved! As for spark plugs, easy, unscrew it and screw in a new one.. what are you a mech virgin or something?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Oleg's inclusion of a P-38"Late" has nothing to do with 150 grade avgas. Disagree 100%! Show me your proof of a mechanical change to the P38L to P38L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp, none, nada, zip! Thus, Ill ask you one more time.. if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Poor naysayers.. get so upset when faced with simply logic they can not explane away.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No, I sugest you read A LOT more on the difference between the L and L LATE engines.. none, nada, zip! Only difference, 150 fuel and spak plugs and a few other bolt on/off items in the kit. SAVVY?


1. The 8th AF tested 150 grade on the P-38J. It was a failure.

2. There were specific engine changes between the J and L models, no one is making unfounded claims WRT the P-38L and 150 grade fuel but yourself.

Go look at the date of the original report on Mike's site and tell me which model of the P-38 it has reference to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

3. The P-38L was not flown in the 8th AF.

4. The 9th AF, where the P-38 was still being used did not recieve 150 grade fuel.


Is any of this starting to sink in or is someone going to have to draw you a picture?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. [QUOTE]


Really, there is "plenty of proof"?

Then where is it Tagert?

8th AF historian Roger Freeman?

Nope

Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand?

Nope


Waren Bodie?


Nope



Where is the proof Tagert?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 12:17 PM
/Crickets chirping\

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
1. The 8th AF tested 150 grade on the P-38J. It was a failure. Not true.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
2. There were specific engine changes between the J and L models, no one is making unfounded claims WRT the P-38L and 150 grade fuel but yourself. Roger on J to L, but we are talking about from P-38L to P-38L LATE. What mechanical changes between the L and L LATE allowed it to go from 1600hp (60"MP) to 1720hp (66"MP). This is the 3rd time I have asked you and the 3rd time you have avoided it.. Kind of makes you wonder, dont it?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Go look at the date of the original report on Mike's site and tell me which model of the P-38 it has reference to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

3. The P-38L was not flown in the 8th AF.

4. The 9th AF, where the P-38 was still being used did not recieve 150 grade fuel.


Is any of this starting to sink in or is someone going to have to draw you a picture? Yes it is, I can clearly see that you are haning onto a thread here and have no answer for how the L to L LATE went from 1600hp to 1720hp. The answer is simple, but to admit it would bring your house of cards to the ground, and thus you wouldnt be able to be a naysayer anymore.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. [QUOTE]


Really, there is "plenty of proof"?

Then where is it Tagert?

8th AF historian Roger Freeman?

Nope

Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand?

Nope


Waren Bodie?


Nope



Where is the proof Tagert? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully bodie does address this, nice try though! Big gold star for effort!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
/Crickets chirping\ Yes they are.. wrt the changes in the L to L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp.. if not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Admit it son.. you have been pwned!

faustnik
01-07-2006, 12:55 PM
The problem wouldn't be the HP capability of the Allison, it was capable of 1700+hp. The issue would be detonation at higher boost pressures, right? Could the intercooler handle the heat issues, was the fuel working well with the Allisons (Fuel in England was problematic with these engines)? Could the mechanics get the issues worked out?

It certainly wasn't as easy as slapping on a kit and getting big power increases. The potential was there, and I'm sure it was tried. How many and how successful were the increases is still somewhat of a question.

I'm sure some of the P-38s ran well enough with the higher power output to use it in combat. The high octane fuel was there, and there was always the need for more power.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Roger on J to L, but we are talking about from P-38L to P-38L LATE. What mechanical changes between the L and L LATE allowed it to go from 1600hp (60"MP) to 1720hp (66"MP). This is the 3rd time I have asked you and the 3rd time you have avoided it.. Kind of makes you wonder, dont it?

[


Everything I've got on the F30 gives 1600hp, not 1720+ hp. I haven't seen clear documentation given for 1720+ hp, not from you or anyone else.

So, _if_ Oleg simply added 10 per cent power to the P-38L engines in the belief that they were used with 150 grade fuel operationally, then that is a mistake and incorrect in a historical sense.

I can only hope that he used more evidence than has been presented in this thread(or ones like it) to make such a change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Nonetheless, ~1720 hp is nothing special or unique WRT V- engines of the day - in fact it is pretty average for the time period, and not dependent on 150 grade avgas. You seem to be the only one under that impression.

Do I need to spell it out more clearly for you?

Only you seem to think they are different a/c because the way a computer game labels them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


So where is your proof Tagert?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Admit it son.. you have been pwned!


Except that you haven't owned anyone in this thread but yourself Tagert.

You've made a request for something that you cannot prove, based on wrong assumptions and nothing else.

Again Tagert:

Where is your _proof_ for 70-75" MAP and the operational use of 150 grade avgas for the P-38?

I'll be waiting...

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Everything I've got on the F30 gives 1600hp, not 1720+ hp. I haven't seen clear documentation given for 1720+ hp, not from you or anyone else. Roger, because at that time they were NOT using 150 grade fuel. Thus your answer to my question (after 3 times asking) is to admit, you got NOTHING to support your claime that there is a mecanical difference in the L and L LATE.. Oh alison expert. Thus, that leaves us with 150 fuel.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
So, _if_ Oleg simply added 10 per cent power to the P-38L engines in the belief that they were used with 150 grade fuel operationally, then that is a mistake and incorrect in a historical sense. Again.. decision time.. Go with CUJO who originally tried to claim there was a difference in the Allison engines between the L and the L LATE, or go with Oleg... Hmmm, Ill have to stick with Oleg in light of your back peddling.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
I can only hope that he used more evidence than has been presented in this thread(or ones like it) to make such a change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif You can bet on that! But dont fool yourself in thinking that this info didnt play into it.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Nonetheless, ~1720 hp is nothing special or unique WRT V- engines of the day - in fact it is pretty average for the time period, and not dependent on 150 grade avgas. You seem to be the only one under that impression. LOL! Trying to have your cake and eat too I see.. Again, nice try, big gold star for effort!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Do I need to spell it out more clearly for you? Nope, in that most of us are reasonable people that realize, unlike you, that the 1600hp to 1720hp was due to the fuel, in light of the FACT that nothing changed in the Allison engine between the L and L LATE.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Only you seem to think they are different a/c because the way a computer game labels them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif LOL! Trying to have your cake and eat too I see.. Again, nice try, big gols star for effort!


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
So where is your proof Tagert? My proof, is in that you got nothing to support your one and only thread that your clinging too.. i.e. the Alison engine did not change.. thus if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Except that you haven't owned anyone in this thread but yourself Tagert. Not true! You came in with a weak argument that the engines changed.. they did not, thus, if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You've made a request for something that you cannot prove, based on wrong assumptions and nothing else. Again, don€t take my word for it, take Oleg's. He saw fit to model the 1720hp P38L as the P38L LATE where NOTHING on the engines changed, thus, if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Again Tagert:

Where is your _proof_ for 70-75" MAP and the operational use of 150 grade avgas for the P-38?

I'll be waiting... As I am still waiting on you to prove that the Alison€s engines changed between the L and L LATE.. Oh wait, you already admitted you got nothing to prove that, so, if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust? I too am still waiting for you to explain that one away.

YOU HAVE BEEN PWNED! Now run along smack-tard! Your naysayin days are over!

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Actully bodie does address this, nice try though! Big gold star for effort!


Your right, Tagert - Bodie does address it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The following quote from Ed Giller can be found in Bodie's book - speciffically WRT 150 grade avgas in the P-38:



"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


-Major General Ed Giller, USAF.

JtD
01-07-2006, 01:59 PM
There were changes to the engines from L to L late. What do you think the modification kits were good for if not for modifying the engine?

Hristo_
01-07-2006, 02:02 PM
Oh boy, now that is what I call proof ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now I can write some "documents" myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Roger, because at that time they were NOT using 150 grade fuel.



Roger, they weren't using it then, nor was it ever used operationally other than testing - testing that failed.




Thus your answer to my question (after 3 times asking) is to admit, you got NOTHING to support your claime that there is a mecanical difference in the L and L LATE.. Oh alison expert. Thus, that leaves us with 150 fuel.


First of all, not once in this thread did I claim there was some mechanical "difference" in the F30s of the P-38L, only that there were changes from the J to L. You will have just as much success quoting me on that, that you will with finding the quote from Oleg that the F30 used 150 grade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Get your story straight.



Now Tagert, again - Where is your proof?

Where is your proof for 150 grade clearance and 70-75" MAP that you are asking to be given to the P-38?

P-38 fanbois everywhere want to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Your right, Tagert - Bodie does address it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The following quote from Ed Giller can be found in Bodie's book - speciffically WRT 150 grade avgas in the P-38:



"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


-Major General Ed Giller, USAF. Yes, Bodie not only talks about the problems, but the soultions.

darkhorizon11
01-07-2006, 02:21 PM
So how much of an increase in climbrate and top speed can we expect in this new Lightening?

I look forward to flying it if we get it, also what will it be called? P-38_L later?

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
There were changes to the engines from L to L late. What do you think the modification kits were good for if not for modifying the engine? You missing the point, CUJO claims that the extra power was NOT due to the 150 fuel, thus not need to make the changes to run 150 fuel, in that it was never done as far as CUJO is concerned. But, we know that is was done, Oleg knows that it was done, eveyone but CUJO and his cheer leaders what to admit it.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
But dont fool yourself in thinking that this info didnt play into it.



Seriously, if this is the "evidence" presented to Oleg to give the P-38 1725hp, then it is a disgrace to the integrity of this flight sim.

I am not saying the F30 didn't produce 1720hp - but I am saying:

1. 1720hp is not very well documented for the P-38L. It certainly hasn't been clearly presented by anyone on this forum.

2. If the F30 was rated normally at 1720hp it was _not_ due to the operational use of 150 grade avgas.

Francis Dean in AHT for example, gives only 1600hp for the F30 in COMBAT power at 3,000rpm.

It is certainly _possible_ that the F30 could have recieved adjustments to boost regulators, strengthened connecting rods, or camshaft, etc. at some point in it's development to achieve 1720+ hp.

JtD
01-07-2006, 02:29 PM
Why don't you guys invest the time you spent here in looking for the US Army Order TMI 01-75FF-13?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Roger, they weren't using it then, nor was it ever used operationally other than testing - testing that failed. No, sorry, once again you misunderstood what is being said. Early on, when the L engines came on line they were NOT using 150 grade fuel, thus, the 1600hp rating you mentioned. Later there were cleared for 1720hp due to the upgrade in fuel from 130 to 150 oct. SAVVY?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
First of all, not once in this thread did I claim there was some mechanical "difference" in the F30s of the P-38L, Actually you did, when you told me to go read about the Alison engines.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
only that there were changes from the J to L. Which was after I set you straight that there were no changes in the L to L LATE engines.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You will have just as much success quoting me on that, that you will with finding the quote from Oleg that the F30 used 150 grade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Get your story straight. No, simply go back and take note that the topic is about the L LATE, not the J. Than note we have been talking about the L the whole time.. you came in and said the 1600hp to 1720hp was not due to 150 fuel, at which point I asked if not the 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust? In that there were no changes to the engines. To which you replied I should go read up on the Alison engine, at which point I said you should in that there were no mech changes to the engines from the L to L LATE.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Now Tagert, again - Where is your proof? It is where it has always been, in your inability to answer how the engines went from 1600hp rating to 1720hp rating.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Where is your proof for 150 grade clearance and 70-75" MAP that you are asking to be given to the P-38? What part of the link did you not understand?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
P-38 fanbois everywhere want to know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Poor naysayer.. Son, you got nothing! The Luftwiner might buy into the Fw190 pixie dust as valid reasons for 1600hp to 1720hp, but not the rest. So, again, if not 150 grade fuel than what?

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Why don't you guys invest the time you spent here in looking for the US Army Order TMI 01-75FF-13?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg NIIIIIIIICE ! Lets see the naysayers dance around that and the rest of the proof!

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:LOL! Nope, in that most of us are reasonable people that realize, unlike you, that the 1600hp to 1720hp was due to the fuel,


Then prove it, because you sure haven't thus far.

And you won't be able to either.

And, by the way Tagert - it really is in your best interest to show that 1720 hp was WITHOUT 150 grade avgas.

Because evidence shows that the P-38 did not use 150 grade operationally. So if it was 150 grade, that would make our P-38L "Late" quite a little anomoly now wouldn't it?


The P-38 was out of the 8th AF by the time 150 grade was in full swing.

Was 150 grade used in the 9th AF Tagert?

Was 150 grade shipped to the Pacific theatre Tagert?

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
But dont fool yourself in thinking that this info didnt play into it.



Seriously, if this is the "evidence" presented to Oleg to give the P-38 1725hp, then it is a disgrace to the integrity of this flight sim.

I am not saying the F30 didn't produce 1720hp - but I am saying:

1. 1720hp is not very well documented for the P-38L. It certainly hasn't been clearly presented by anyone on this forum.

2. If the F30 was rated normally at 1720hp it was _not_ due to the operational use of 150 grade avgas.

Francis Dean in AHT for example, gives only 1600hp for the F30 in COMBAT power at 3,000rpm.

It is certainly _possible_ that the F30 could have recieved adjustments to boost regulators, strengthened connecting rods, or camshaft, etc. at some point in it's development to achieve 1720+ hp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy now.. all that back peddling is bound to get your pant leg stuck in the chain and sprocket!

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:LOL! Nope, in that most of us are reasonable people that realize, unlike you, that the 1600hp to 1720hp was due to the fuel,


Then prove it, because you sure haven't thus far.

And you won't be able to either.

And, by the way Tagert - it really is in your best interest to show that 1720 hp was WITHOUT 150 grade avgas.

Because evidence shows that the P-38 did not use 150 grade operationally. So if it was 150 grade, that would make our P-38L "Late" quite a little anomoly now wouldn't it?


The P-38 was out of the 8th AF by the time 150 grade was in full swing.

Was 150 grade used in the 9th AF Tagert?

Was 150 grade shipped to the Pacific theatre Tagert? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
YOU HAVE BEEN PWNED! Now run along smack-tard! Your naysayin days are over!



You better watch your tone there Tagert.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
If not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?



If 5,000 Lockheed employees and several years of development couldn't work out the problems with the P-38 in the 8th AF, then maybe they should have tried some pixie dust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You better watch your tone there Tagert. What is the mater smack-tard? Is my singing getting out of key for you? Or you dont like the corus? Give me another chance.. one second while I tune up..

Pfffffffffft! Me Me Me Meeeee.. Hmmmm (clears throught) La La La, if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Did that sound beter that time smack-tard?


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
If not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?



If 5,000 Lockheed employees and several years of development couldn't work out the problems with the P-38 in the 8th AF, then maybe they should have tried some pixie dust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You have come full circle smack-tard.. You started with nothing but pixie dust.. and you ended with nothing but pixie dust

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:52 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 JtD:
Why don't you guys invest the time you spent here in looking for the US Army Order TMI 01-75FF-13?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg NIIIIIIIICE ! Lets see the naysayers dance around that and the rest of the proof! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where did the P-38 use 150 grade fuel Tagert?

8th AF?

9th AF?

Pacific?

Where Tagert?


No P-38Ls in the 8th AF Tagert.

Was 150 grade fuel used in the P-38L in the 9th AF?

Was 150 grade fuel used in the P-38L in the Pacific Tagert?


You need to find an _operational_ use for it Tagert, or find clearence for the F30 without the need for 150 grade avgas or the P-38L "Late" in the sim is a bit of an anomoly isn't it?


Again, I can only hope that the P-38L "Late" in this sim is _not_ based on an aircraft using 150 grade avgas.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<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 JtD:
Why don't you guys invest the time you spent here in looking for the US Army Order TMI 01-75FF-13?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg NIIIIIIIICE ! Lets see the naysayers dance around that and the rest of the proof! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where did the P-38 use 150 grade fuel Tagert?

8th AF?

9th AF?

Pacific?

Where Tagert?


No P-38Ls in the 8th AF Tagert.

Was 150 grade fuel used in the P-38L in the 9th AF?

Was 150 grade fuel used in the P-38L in the Pacific Tagert?


You need to find an _operational_ use for it Tagert, or find clearence for the F30 without the need for 150 grade avgas or the P-38L "Late" in the sim is a bit of an anomoly isn't it?


Again, I can only hope that the P-38L "Late" in this sim is _not_ based on an aircraft using 150 grade avgas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Nice try, big gold star for effort! Thanks for proving that your going to argue with all and any evidence.. Even with Oleg, thus, just and upset smack-tard naysayer who can no longer say nay.

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Did that sound beter that time smack-tard?




HaHa,an internet tough-guy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Keep running your mouth, get yet another vacation and yet another locked thread to your credit.


PS - nobody likes you. (seriously)

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 02:59 PM
Answer the questions Tagert.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Did that sound beter that time smack-tard?




HaHa,an internet tough-guy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Keep running your mouth, get yet another vacation and yet another locked thread to your credit.


PS - nobody likes you. (seriously) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry if I have upset you.. I know it is hard for a long standing naysayer to come to grips with the FACT that they have been provin wrong in front of god and everybody.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Answer the questions Tagert. Question? Ah, the nobody likes me thing.. right.. Well it is true, there are alot of smack-tard naysayers that dont like me or Oleg's TRUTH.

Hristo_
01-07-2006, 03:35 PM
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9104/proof1ro.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-07-2006, 04:28 PM
Why do you disagree?

Should boosts be allowed for any aircraft even without evidence of the use of it in combat?

In fact the document you linked to only indicates that one squadron of P38s was using 150 grade fuel at a boost of 66" MP, NOT 70" or 75" MP and with only an indication that it might soon be using 70" MP. It is not convincing evidence that 70" MP was used, and certainly not 75". It will take more to convince Oleg. When Kahuna and lrrp talked to Oleg about getting higher boosts for the P47 they provided detailed evidence of actual use, not a single document indicating only possible intention of future use.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9104/proof1ro.jpg LOL! Nice fake doc! Nice try, gold star for effort! For those of you that are interested in the real deal

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html

Aaron_GT
01-07-2006, 04:37 PM
NIIIIIIIICE ! Lets see the naysayers dance around that and the rest of the proof!

Note that the engines cleared do not, apparently, include the F30 of the P-38L, and the maximum boost is 60". This does not mean they were not capable of using 150 octane at high boosts, just that the particular engine is absent from the order.


No, sorry, once again you misunderstood what is being said. Early on, when the L engines came on line they were NOT using 150 grade fuel, thus, the 1600hp rating you mentioned. Later there were cleared for 1720hp due to the upgrade in fuel from 130 to 150 oct. SAVVY?

If you look at the document JtD posted for all Allison engines noted the cleared boost on the nearest equivalent engines to the F30 from that order does not increase from 130 to 150 grade fuel. So you need additional information other than you have suggested to back the assertion it is 150 octane fuel was the thing that allowed the increase in power from the engines. AFAIK it was not required.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Why do you disagree? Why does anyone disagree? Because I dont agree with your statement and or theory.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Should boosts should be allowed for any aircraft even without evidence of the use of it in combat? Did I say boosts be allowed for any aircraft even without evidence of the use of it in combat? Answer, nope, never said that. I simply pointed out that the P38 was cleared for 75"MP. Thus, all the naysayers complaining about 66"MP are without a paddle now.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In fact the document you linked to only indicates that one squadron of P38s was using 150 grade fuel at a boost of 66" MP, NOT 70" or 75" MP and with only an indication that it might soon be using 70" MP. Only One he says... HEEHHEAEHAEHHEHEAAHHHEEHEHEHAE.. Ah well, look at the bright side, that is *one* more than the smack-tards are willing to admit to.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It is not convincing evidence that 70" MP was used, and certainly not 75". To some, but not others.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It will take more to convince Oleg. When Kahuna and lrrp talked to Oleg about getting higher boosts for the P47 they provided detailed evidence of actual use, not a single document indicating only possible intention of future use. Like I told you in my first post to you (you really should read before you reply) but allow me to repeate it, in the hopes that maybe the 2nd time it will sink in. All in all guys, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fanticy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?

faustnik
01-07-2006, 04:51 PM
It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level,

***I agree with the inclusion of the L Late in the sim***, but, I'm not sure about this statement here Tagert. If reading Bodie's book teaches you anything about the P-38 and ETO fuels, it is that nothing was easy. The turbosupercharged Allison and UK mixed fuels were a source of headache for groundcrews and pilots alike.

Aaron_GT
01-07-2006, 04:52 PM
[quote]Why does anyone disagree? Because I dont agree with your statement and or theory.[/quoute]

Disagree 100%

robban75
01-07-2006, 04:55 PM
Smack-tards?

There should be a mental age limit on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
01-07-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Smack-tards?

There should be a mental age limit on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Uhoh, I'll be in trouble. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level,

***I agree with the inclusion of the L Late in the sim***, but, I'm not sure about this statement here Tagert. If reading Bodie's book teaches you anything about the P-38 and ETO fuels, it is that nothing was easy. The turbosupercharged Allison and UK mixed fuels were a source of headache for groundcrews and pilots alike. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully we do agree, in that note that I said *common thing* not *easy thing*. I have allready noted there were inital problems.. but they were solved.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Smack-tards?

There should be a mental age limit on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Agreed 100%, exclused the smack-tards

robban75
01-07-2006, 05:07 PM
Like pouring water on a goose...

CUJO_1970
01-07-2006, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sorry if I have upset you.. I know it is hard for a long standing naysayer to come to grips with the FACT that they have been provin wrong in front of god and everybody.



Um...right, but you really haven't proven a single thing have you Tagert?

You haven't dealt with any of the relevant questions, and your claim that the P-38 was cleared for 75" MAP is unfounded.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Um...right, but you really haven't proven a single thing have you Tagert? I proved that you dont belive in Oleg's assement of including the P38L LATE. I also proved that you have NO ANSWER as to how the Alison engines went from 1600hp rating to 1720hp rating with NO CHANGE.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
You haven't dealt with any of the relevant questions, and your claim that the P-38 was cleared for 75" MAP is unfounded. Disagree 100%! But, Like I told you and yours, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fanticy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation.

That is to say..

Welcome to my rope-a-dope!

YOU SAVVY?

p1ngu666
01-07-2006, 05:51 PM
atleast this thread has given tagart a chance to practise argueing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hristo, doesnt the mx6 use a rotatary wankel engine? just thinkin thats a bad matchup to the p47. wankel engines tend to rev high, be small and produce little torque

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
atleast this thread has given tagart a chance to practise argueing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Yes, the truth is a hard pill for some to swallow

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
[quote]Why does anyone disagree? Because I dont agree with your statement and or theory.[/quoute]

Disagree 100% Now you catching on! Glad I could help!

PS that is /quote not /quoute, drop the 2nd u and you will be g2g!

PS your welcome

carguy_
01-07-2006, 06:08 PM
Very nice thread.I don`t think TAGERT has a wife.He seems have quite big argue-libido http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


The thread says 66 is ok mhmmmmmm wait meybee we can #### something up here uuuuuuum I GOT IT,LET`S BUMP IT TO 75 and look what happens! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tachyon1000
01-07-2006, 06:35 PM
He just likes to keep moving the bar higher for the P-38 so that he might at least get them to up the performance a little.

Good performance at 54" MAP? Well, hell let's test it against obscure reference to series of tests done with 66" MAP. See, can't meet that eventhough we already know the supposed top speed is off.

Now, hey, I have got an even more obscure reference that it does thus and so at 75" MAP. Come on, Oleg. Fix this thing, yada, yada, yada.

The plane is fine. Get over it.

Hristo_
01-07-2006, 06:43 PM
Tagert vs Cujo (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Tagert&word2=Cujo)

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Very nice thread. Was, until the smack-tards showed up


Originally posted by carguy_:
I don`t think TAGERT has a wife. He seems have quite big argue-libido http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You can call me daddy!


Originally posted by carguy_:
The thread says 66 is ok mhmmmmmm wait meybee we can #### something up here uuuuuuum I GOT IT,LET`S BUMP IT TO 75 and look what happens! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif As noted on page one, to you and yours, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane.

It was not!

The in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was actually cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say..

Welcome to my rope-a-dope!

YOU SAVVY?

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
He just likes to keep moving the bar higher for the P-38 so that he might at least get them to up the performance a little. Not true, as new info becomes aval, I simply point it out. Sorry if the truth bothers you so much.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Good performance at 54" MAP? Well, hell let's test it against obscure reference to series of tests done with 66" MAP. See, can't meet that even though we already know the supposed top speed is off. Comparing real world data is always better than some *theory* junk some try to pass off as scientific.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Now, hey, I have got an even more obscure reference that it does thus and so at 75" MAP. Come on, Oleg. Fix this thing, yada, yada, yada.

The plane is fine. Get over it. LOL! Poor naysayers.. first they say nay.. Then when proven wrong they try to blow it off like it was no big deal in the first place.. Nice try, gold star for effort! But, before you go, as noted on page one, to you and yours, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane.

It was not!

The in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was actually cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say..

Welcome to my rope-a-dope!

YOU SAVVY?

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Tagert vs Cujo (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Tagert&word2=Cujo) Proof positive.. Simple pleasures for simple minds.

AustinPowers_
01-07-2006, 07:47 PM
So tagert is basing his argument on 1 word


At present they are set at 65 but will probably soon be changed to 70 inches

But better still, baby..



"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


Yeah baby! And I thought Kurfursts argument for a 1.98 ATA was "stretching" it to say the least.

I will probably Shag tonight too.

darkhorizon11
01-07-2006, 07:56 PM
I don't mean to start this same old fight but why is everyone so against seeing this aircraft? I know blue flyers haven't gotten too much in the past year and want something too, but still... The plane flew, the only reason why it didn't go across the channel was probably because it wasn't deemed necessary at the time. It helps for the Luftwaffe vs. USAAC, RAF 1946 scenario because large numbers of this boosted P-38 would have been battling large numbers of Ta-152s and Me262s etc. months before large numbers of YP-80s would ever have made it to Europe (yes I know two did fly combat trials in April and May of 1945) which is really hypothetical. But be as it may, including this aircraft benefits everyone.

Having this aircraft just makes the game more balanced the blue has way more late war uber aircraft. The jets still have the upper hand by far.

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
So tagert is basing his argument on 1 word

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At present they are set at 65 but will probably soon be changed to 70 inches

But better still, baby..



"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 per cent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubbber gloves when fueling the aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes on low cruise, many engines began to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half the engines."


In conclusion:


"Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions."


Yeah baby! And I thought Kurfursts argument for a 1.98 ATA was "stretching" it to say the least.

I will probably Shag tonight too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As noted on page one, to you and yours, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane.

It was not!

The in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was actually cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say..

Welcome to my rope-a-dope!

YOU SAVVY?

The list gets even longer! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
01-07-2006, 09:35 PM
looks like ORR is slowly degrading into TRR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
looks like ORR is slowly degrading into TRR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Slowly?

I don€t think I have ever seen the naysayers team up and rush in so fast and furious to defend their *ground*. Sadly for them, this time they had no leg to stand on. Sad part was their weak attempts at having their cake and eat it too arguments.. Like

Yes, Ok, so I admit, the P38L LATE at 66€MP was not a myth.. BUT, it was only available on some.. not all and not 70€MP! And that was only due to some some engine changes.. err ahh.. I mean no engine changes.. err ahh.. I mean, ah, ah, ah, Well never mind that, just know this TAGERT, nobody likes you (seriously)

Poor suckers, hook, line, and sinker! In that my only goal was to get them to admit to the 66€MP. Check out the turn around time on some of thsoe replys of theirs.. just min inbetween. They must really fear the P38? In that up UNTIL NOW they they said the P38L LATE at 66"MP was a UFO/FANTACY plane.. Now they are off chasing the 70€MP rating as a UFO/FANTACY plane. That's fine, let see what they say in a couple of months.. When some more new info becomes aval on that topic. Should be as funny if not funnier! Back peddling so fast they looked like a kid on a bike the fist time dad took the training wheels off!

But, the best part is I told them on page one, and every page since, that it was a rope-a-dope.. Yet they still fell for it hook, line and sinker! Talk about blind with envy! ROTFLMAO!

JtD
01-08-2006, 12:24 AM
You can get more power from an engine simply by closing the wastegate of the turbocharger a little more. You don't necessarily have to change the fuel to do so.

fordfan25
01-08-2006, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Targert is searching for more performance where ever he can get... its for hide his problems in flying-skill ;-)

BTW: The P38L which we already have is a real killer.... its faster then k4 down low... can turn with almost everything and climbs like a rocket... you want more? wrong on all accounts

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 01:38 AM
That's fine, let see what they say in a couple of months.. When some more new info becomes aval on that topic.

Being reasonable people I would imagine that if we are shown evidence of 70" MP in squadron usage to a reasonable degree then we would agree that it would be reasonable to model it in the game (notwithstanding some things in the game are fantasy planes which IMHO shouldn't really be in there anyway, e.g. 109Z).

66" MP is fairly well attested, so no problem with that being modelled. Ditto higher boosts in the P47 which we got.


Poor suckers, hook, line, and sinker! In that my only goal was to get them to admit to the 66€MP.

If your intention was to get people to admit that 66" MP was used, why not post evidence of that rather than play silly games?

ElAurens
01-08-2006, 01:56 AM
Aaron, you know as well as I do that if we say that George Washington was the first president of the United States, that someone will rush in here and say no he wasn't, just because he was American.

Real evidence posted on US aircraft is more often than not treated as fiction or propaganda here, whereas German (and to a lesser extent RAF) numbers are treated as Holy Scripture.

If it takes some "tactics" to get the real US numbers believed than so be it.

Hristo_
01-08-2006, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:

Real evidence posted on US aircraft is more often than not treated as fiction or propaganda here, whereas German (and to a lesser extent RAF) numbers are treated as Holy Scripture.



You call Tagert's "document" real ? Who wrote it ? For whom ? When ? Where ? Did you bother to open that URL ? No dates, no signatures. USAAF used HTML in WW2 ?? If it was for any reason retyped, at least a reference to original document should be added, don't you think ?

IMO, this is going far too far with "documents" like that.

In 5 minutes I changed the font and made a more "authentic" document than that. Don't make me search for a "document" on a 1000kph Dora http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Now let's all be nice and suggest the original poster to provide more background on that "document".

carguy_
01-08-2006, 04:04 AM
Ahah,so you guys take non clear "evidence" for granted because one bloody squadron had more powerful engines?

You know as well as I do that if we say that someone came to a conclusion that it would be ok to try 75" then 66" MUST BE AND SURELY HAD BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY BY P38,right?

I dunno bout others, I don`t fly western front because of very bad map design.To be true,there is not much in making P38 more powerful,cuz it is not visible from 3000m above anyway.

The line where I`m afraid of a competitive P38 just cracks me up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

IMO the P38L late is competitive but is only a rare upgrade US had,besides normal P38 L/J.You guys believe that P38L late was the normal P38L in later days of WWII and the P38L late should be better than that.So you post anything that states P38 being at higher than 55".The problem is,there has been nothing posted saying clearly the 66" was a plain power setting used in western front in WWII.

OldMan____
01-08-2006, 04:46 AM
Well FW 190 A4 also have "proofs" it was used in Westernfront in higehr ATA than we have now.

We never received that, so why P38 deserves it most?

I think oleg should have made game based on samaller and worst data found on any plane, not the opposite.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 05:32 AM
Real evidence posted on US aircraft is more often than not treated as fiction or propaganda here, whereas German (and to a lesser extent RAF) numbers are treated as Holy Scripture.

To get the Mustang III at +25lb a lot of work was done. I was one of the ones who tried to kick that off. It required a lot of evidence. We still don't have a +25 Spitfire IX, and the Tempest V is performing at an unrealistic +9 boost, not +11, so I don't see any special favours for RAF aircraft. Ditto goes for the 190A4 as Old Man points out - higher boost versions existed but are not present in the game. A 66" MP P38 (which is well attested by evidence) was put in the sim. There may be issues about its performance (people are still debating about whether it is correct or not and to be honest I've lost track of whether or to what extent the P38s are underperforming).


If it takes some "tactics" to get the real US numbers believed than so be it.

But what people on the forum believe is immaterial and all it is managing to do is piss people off with ridiculous mind games. Secondly if Oleg is aware of Tagert playing mind games he may be sceptical of the good work Tagert has done. I suspect the tactics Tagert is using are probably counter productive.

With the Mustang III +25 boost the evidence (mostly presented by lrrp) was collected and collated and sent to Oleg, he thought it was sufficient, and the plane was duly put in the sim. With the P47 the data was collected and collated, mostly by Kahuna, and the plane was duly put in the sim. The debate on the message boards was mostly at a minimum. It seems that this is what gets results.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 05:36 AM
IMO the P38L late is competitive but is only a rare upgrade US had,besides normal P38 L/J.You guys believe that P38L late was the normal P38L in later days of WWII and the P38L late should be better than that.So you post anything that states P38 being at higher than 55".The problem is,there has been nothing posted saying clearly the 66" was a plain power setting used in western front in WWII.

The P38J could run at 54" as standard, and there is plenty of evidence that it could run at a WEP of 60". There is a far amount of evidence for P38Ls running at up to 66" WEP. Climb charts may show lower boosts for military rating of 60" that goes along with 66" WEP.

The debate about the P38 has as much been that the climb performance of the P38J and P38L (early) in the game may not accurately represent what the performance was in real life. Quite what conclusions have been drawn and how cast iron they are I am not 100% sure as I haven't tried the climb schedules myself.

bolillo_loco
01-08-2006, 06:28 AM
I have a little information on this subject. I know I could find more than this, but I'm unwilling to do more research at this time.

This information is for the 89/91 F-17s not the 111/113 F-30s.

From "Vee's for Victory" from page 370:

"V-1710-89 (F17R) began a 7-1/2 hour War Emergency test at 65 inHgA at 3,000 rpm using AN-F-28 Amendment 2 fuel (standard 100/130 Grade) on December 16th, 1943. The engine failed after 45 minutes due to pre-ignition (detonation) caused by the use of standard issue sparkplugs. Engine was Glycol cooled."

"V-1710-91 (F17L) began a 7-1/2 hour War Emergency Rating test at 75 inHgA at 3,000 rpm in March 1944. Test installation was to mock-up that of the Lockheed P-38J, and included the GE Type B-33 turbosupercharger and intercooler. The PD-12K7 carburetor had to have its jets enlarged to provide sufficient fuel for a 0.10 pounds/horsepower-hour BSFC required to eliminate detonation. Fuel was Grade 44-1 rated at 104/150 PN. The engine produced 1,880 bhp at 3,000 rpm with 77 inHgA. Turbo backpressure was 51 inHgA and the 'ram' from the turbo into the carburetor was 42.4 inHgA, somewhat greater than teh usual carburetor deck pressure for seal-level rated (i.e. turbosupercharged) engines of 30 inHgA. After 4-1/2 hours at high power a piston failed ruining the engine. A restest at 70 inHgA was recommended."

"In late March 1944 another V-1710-91 (F17L) attempted a 7-1/2 hour War Emergency test, this time at 70 inHgA. The same turbosupercharger arrangement as in the P-38J was used. This time the test was successful at a rating of 1,700 brhp, 3,000 rpm and 70 inHgA."

From "Vee's for Victory" from page 271:

"A series of high-power tests were run in which water injection test engines were qualified to operate at 1,840 bhp and 75 inHgA. By also utilizing turbosupercharger boost at the carburetor deck, these engines demonstrated WER at 2,000 bhp."

I just thought it would be interesting to see what the 89/91 (F17s) were capable of if given "water injection," which they weren't.

In this book Allison tech representatives state that on 100/130-grade fuel the V-1710-89/91€s limit was 70 inHgA without any anti-detonation-injection (ADI).

LeVier went to England and tested a P-38J. He pulled 60 inHgA at 3,200 rpm until his tanks were nearly dry. He reported no problems with the Allisons. After the flight, his engines were torn down and inspected. No indications that immanent engine failure was present.

The testing done by Allison corroborates anecdotal evidence, that I have read, of half a dozen pilot€s comments that they knowingly or accidentally pulled 65-70 inHgA during combat missions.

I€m sorry that I haven€t included any information about the F30s. I have too many books to poke through and as some of you that have a large library of books knows, this can take hours.

I am not for this topic, and if anything I lean away from the topic starter€s opinion and more towards that of others who have shown an interest in correcting the problems that the P-38J and P-38L currently have. Any corrections to these two specific model Lightnings, would in the end benefit the P-38L-Late.

To Tagert, I'm sorry that I've went off topic a bit and included the F17s, but I will try to make an honest effort at looking for F30 ratings. At least I've stayed on the topic of the P-38.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 07:33 AM
Interesting stuff, boilio. Any information on any possible regular and intentional usage of 70" in service in terms of orders at squadron level?

JG5_UnKle
01-08-2006, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But what people on the forum believe is immaterial and all it is managing to do is piss people off with ridiculous mind games. Secondly if Oleg is aware of Tagert playing mind games he may be sceptical of the good work Tagert has done. I suspect the tactics Tagert is using are probably counter productive.


Agree 100%

Calling other forum members names, "post quoting" and *****ing incessantly isn't going to get it changed.

Going on a personal crusade to thwart the evil lufties won't get the P-38 up to "spec" either. Be sure...

Now emailing Oleg hey, there's an idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif but I guess it is more fun to start a thread war, watch it go wrong, then try to figure out how your next thread war might be better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

+1 for comedy value though - thnx!

ElAurens
01-08-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:

You call Tagert's "document" real?


Hristo, I am speaking generally here. Not specifically about this "document".

The trend has been that whenever real documentation is shown the "blue" guys jump up and down and scream a lot because they are really tryng to protect their precious Warpclouds stats. And that is the real bottom line here.

Look, I fly all sides in this sim. I have no particular nationalistic axe to grind personally. There are aircraft from all countrys that are under or incorrectly performing. The derated A4, the A6M2-21, Ki-61, P51 wing shedding, the list is quite long. I want all aircraft properly modeled. Not just one side's to the detriment of the other...

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 08:46 AM
The derated A4, the A6M2-21, Ki-61, P51 wing shedding, the list is quite long. I want all aircraft properly modeled.

Here, here!

Sadly given that BoB is the new focus I don't think we'll get everything fixed since there is no extra revenue in getting it fixed unless there is a paid 'fixes all known bugs' add on.

bolillo_loco
01-08-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Interesting stuff, boilio. Any information on any possible regular and intentional usage of 70" in service in terms of orders at squadron level?

I'm sorry, but I've only read half a dozen pilot's statements where they either intentionally or unintentionally ran their P-38Js at 65-70 inHgA, either on combat missions or other flights. I've read quite a few books written specifically on units and or pilots who flew P-38s, and I've only come up with half a dozen or so pilot's accounts to support specific instances of running 65-70 inHgA on 100/130 grade fuel.There are dozens of references to P-38Ls having "more hp, more powerful engines, and or able to run more inHgA" with the P-38L than you could in the P-38J.

I've never read that entire units, be they fighter groups or squadrons, used the power ratings I have spoke about. I would think that if they had I would have read about it at some point, but I haven't. The best example I can think of where the Lightning's use deviated from Army Air Corps' and or Lockheed's restrictions on the Lightning would be in the MTO. It seems at least one squadron saw fit to modify their Lightnings to include six hard points for bombs or drop tanks. I've seen a lot of pictures to support the use of 4 x 500 lb bombs along with 2 x 165 gallon or 5 x 500 lb bombs and 1 x 165 gallon drop tank. I've read about 2 x 2,000lb + 4 x 300lb bombs for a 5,200lb bomb load, but I'm unsure it it was used or the maximum bomb load as reported by the unit that performed the field modification. My point about the field modification to carry extra external ordinance vs the use of 65-70 inHgA, is that there is much photographic and text evidence to support said armament modifications, while there is little to support the use of 65-70 inHgA by an entire squadron, but only evidence to suggest that it could be done because it has been documented by half a dozen pilots and Lockheed has test data to prove that it was possible.

What has been written in books only represents a small portion of the men who flew and fought with X plane.

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But what people on the forum believe is immaterial
Agreed 100%! But, like I told you in my very first post to you on page one. I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
and all it is managing to do is piss people off with ridiculous mind games.
Thanks for the feedback! Nice to know it worked!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Secondly if Oleg is aware of Tagert playing mind games he may be sceptical of the good work Tagert has done. I suspect the tactics Tagert is using are probably counter productive.
As I said, my goal was not to get Oleg to change something. As for Oleg, do you real think Oleg gives a rats a$$ about anything I say or do in this forum? PLEASE! He does not even come here anymore! Heck some say he does not even reply to the email sent to the bug report email address. Which is when I do have something to show, Ill post it anywhere but here.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
With the Mustang III +25 boost the evidence (mostly presented by lrrp) was collected and collated and sent to Oleg, he thought it was sufficient, and the plane was duly put in the sim. With the P47 the data was collected and collated, mostly by Kahuna, and the plane was duly put in the sim. The debate on the message boards was mostly at a minimum. It seems that this is what gets results.
As was the case with the P38L LATE, yet from that day on the naysayers have referred to it running at 66"MP as some kind of UFO/FANTACY plane. Thus welcome to my rope-a-dope! which once and for all got the naysayers to STFU about 66"MP in that they are pissin their pants in fear of 75"MP now, and thus moving their sights to that. I can not tell you how happy it makes me inside to know it worked, and with such ease! So, expect to see more switch and bate rope-a-dope mind games in the future.

PS once again thanks to bolillo loco and his dedication to the P38 cause you got your PROOF you requested from me.. In that you wouldnt take my word for it.. i.e.


Originally posted by bolilo_loco P38 info expert:
The testing done by Allison corroborates anecdotal evidence, that I have read, of half a dozen pilot€s comments that they knowingly or accidentally pulled 65-70 inHgA during combat missions.
You happy now? My bet is no, no your not. Now you will request what they had for lunch and the color of their eyes.. right?

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 09:06 AM
Impressive loadouts, bollio. It would be nice to have some of those options.

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
You can get more power from an engine simply by closing the wastegate of the turbocharger a little more. You don't necessarily have to change the fuel to do so. I know that, and like I said to you on page one, My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the nay sayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantacy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! As for the 150 fuel, I just used that to twist CUDA's tail to get him over heated and to show how little he knew about the Alison engine and any engine for that mater.. Conecting rods.. LOL!

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 09:14 AM
Hmm I would imagine Oleg's reasons for limiting to 66" MP is that noone has passed him any information to indicate any standard use of anything higher.

Oleg does reply to the bug report email address sometimes. AFAIK people working on the Mustang III got replies, and it got results. This is why I wonder if your reputation precedes you if you don't get replies. This is not to say that I think you are wrong about P38 performance - some of your arguments are persuasive, but I wonder if your presentation has been prejudicial to the case, and I don't mean to say this in a personal way, just trying to help you pitch things appropriately.

With regard to what bollio posted, he admits that it does not represent any sort of official or widespread use of those boost levels. For the Mustang III and P47 boosts (I did my best to help on this, contacting P&W, so I am certainly not against high boosts for US aircraft!) the evidence was of well documented, widespread and systematic usage.

Brain32
01-08-2006, 09:18 AM
The trend has been that whenever real documentation is shown the "blue" guys jump up and down and scream a lot because they are really tryng to protect their precious Warpclouds stats. And that is the real bottom line here.
Complete and utter BullSh*t!!! You may not be biased about sides in the game but you are about sides(yes unfortunatley we have them) in this community...
You know what is funny? I don't see some people who rock in those slow and undermodelled Spits, P51s come here and whine, fascinating isn't it?
When will you people understand that red planes are not porked? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hmm I would imagine Oleg's reasons for limiting to 66" MP is that noone has passed him any information to indicate any standard use of anything higher. LOL! Son, how many times do I have to post what I said to you on page one? It is not about 75"MP! The 66"MP was called UFO/FANTACY in that is was above the 60"MP rating! Man.. did I rattle your cage that hard?


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Oleg does reply to the bug report email address sometimes. AFAIK people working on the Mustang III got replies, and it got results. This is why I wonder if your reputation precedes you if you don't get replies. Read again smack-tard! I said some people report.. not I! I have got a reply from Oleg each time I have emailed him at his bug report email address.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This is not to say that I think you are wrong about P38 performance - some of your arguments are persuasive, Now


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
but I wonder if your presentation has been prejudicial to the case, and I don't mean to say this in a personal way, just trying to help you pitch things appropriately. Disagree 100%


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
With regard to what bollio posted, he admits that it does not represent any sort of official or widespread use of those boost levels. Actully only thing I saw him admit to is there is no picture proof of it.. Something to which most smack-tards *need* to belive.. In that comon since is not enough. But it is hard to find pictures of the guages while in a dog fight.. Most fighter pilots have better things to do.. Thus, no pic, no proof, right? What is real funny, is you asked for what Bollio gave you.. And your still trying to twist even those words around to meet your needs. My only hope is Bollio can find out what they had for lunch that day.. But I would urge him not to waste his time.. Because you would just set the bar higher and want to know how much mud was on thier shoes that morning too.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
For the Mustang III and P47 boosts (I did my best to help on this, contacting P&W, so I am certainly not against high boosts for US aircraft!) the evidence was of well documented, widespread and systematic usage. As is the cause with the P38.. But because it is the only US aircraft that can TnB with the best of the Lw AC at low alt it gets alot more naysayers attached to it.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 09:23 AM
LOL! Son, how many times do I have to post what I said to you on page one? It is not about 75"MP! The 66"MP was called UFO/FANTACY in that is was above the 60"MP rating! Man.. did I rattle your cage that hard?

No rattling, just that you are being somewhat bizzare and contradictory, and also extremely insulting.


I have got a reply from Oleg each time I have emailed him at his bug report email address.

Sorry, my error.

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LOL! Son, how many times do I have to post what I said to you on page one? It is not about 75"MP! The 66"MP was called UFO/FANTACY in that is was above the 60"MP rating! Man.. did I rattle your cage that hard?

No rattling, just that you are being somewhat bizzare and contradictory, and also extremely insulting.


I have got a reply from Oleg each time I have emailed him at his bug report email address.

Sorry, my error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You poor thing.. Ok, Ill take it easy on you.

PS what did you have for breakfast? That might explain your sadness and inability to coment on the PROOF you requested, recived, and still avoiding.

bolillo_loco
01-08-2006, 09:44 AM
In regards to P-47D models running higher than "officially rated" map and hp ratings, there isn't any official documentation that I'm aware of (I haven't read it all and the Thunderbolt fan boys with extensive material are needed), but there is evidence that P&W proved it could be done, and certain pilots did run "souped-up" P-47D models. I believe that much of the "wonder plane" P-47 hype does have some truth to it. Consider the performance an early P-47D would have, given the fact that it had less internal tankage (305 gallons), water injection, paddle prop (both field modifications), special attention paid to both the airframe and engine, and all coupled with an experienced and combat proven 56th Fighter Group pilot. It doesn't sound too far-fetched and it is entirely possible given the influence that some of the 56th personnel had.

In the case of the Mk-III Mustang and its respective rating, I was under the impression that this was widely used by the British, thus making it a far different case than either the Thunderbolt or Lightning.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2006, 09:53 AM
In regards to P-47D models running higher than "officially rated" map and hp ratings, there isn't any official documentation that I'm aware of (I haven't read it all and the Thunderbolt fan boys with extensive material are needed), but there is evidence that P&W proved it could be done, and certain pilots did run "souped-up" P-47D models.

Best ask Kahuna exactly what he sent to Oleg, but I got the impression it included documentation from squadrons on the use of high boosts. I didn't personally get any info back from P&W but Kahuna might have done.

Hristo_
01-08-2006, 10:25 AM
Why didn't I get called smack-tard ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG5_UnKle
01-08-2006, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Why didn't I get called smack-tard ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Give it time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Why didn't I get called smack-tard ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Because smack-tard was too mild for what you really are.. But, if if it makes you feel better.. what up 10xsmack-tard!?

Hristo_
01-08-2006, 02:48 PM
Thanks, now I feel better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-08-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Thanks, now I feel better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif My pleasure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

bolillo_loco
01-09-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Why didn't I get called smack-tard ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Because it is common knowledge, and it isn't polite to pick on the mentally challenged.

WOLFMondo
01-09-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
and the Tempest V is performing at an unrealistic +9 boost, not +11,

The AI model's boost is now 11lbs. Just doesn't perform like its got 9 or ll. Performs like its got a lawnmower engine.

AustinPowers_
01-09-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Performs like its got a lawnmower engine.

Certainly sounds like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 08:42 PM
I hate to be the barer of bad news to the naysayers but.. Oh who am I kidding! I live for this sh*t! But I digress.

Long story short, the naysayers wanted more proof, well.. there is an old saying.. Be careful what you wish for!

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/p-38-75inch-prelim-wer.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engdiv-16-march-44.jpg

My thanks to a little bird who's name stars with an M! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I mean WOW! 2000bhp @ 75"MP! Or.. as Austing Powers would say

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8407/austin016zy.jpg <span class="ev_code_yellow">YEA BABY!</span>

PS crazyivan, in light of the new info, you may want to move this thread back to ORR? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Gibbage1
01-09-2006, 09:09 PM
Wow. P-38J with 4000HP? Thats a wet dream come true! Unfortunatly with that much horse power, you would enter compressability in level top speed. The 1725HP rating was getting darn close. And thats in real life! Oleg has the compressability a little early in-game.

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. P-38J with 4000HP? Thats a wet dream come true! Unfortunatly with that much horse power, you would enter compressability in level top speed. The 1725HP rating was getting darn close. And thats in real life! Oleg has the compressability a little early in-game. Roger that! I can run down all the Lw targets I got ammo for now! So, F the top speed, think in terms of ROC! climb right up the six of any Lw plane and drop off a few 20mm at your leasure! Man, if we had this plane it would make up for the lack of a F4u-4 imho.. and it would be the plane of choice to swat the Do335s out of the sky.

But, again, just to be crystal here.. This is for all the folks that missed it on page one, and ever page since. Not doing this in the hopes or dreams of the P38 getting this rating.. God knows Oleg like's to use conservative settings for allied planes (USA allied planes that is). My only hope is that this will once and for all get the 66"MP UFO/FANTACY naysayers to STFU!

ElAurens
01-09-2006, 09:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ElAurens
01-09-2006, 09:20 PM
I posted this one before, but now seems an appropriate time to drop this bomb again.

Have a look P40 fans....

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Allison%20Doc1.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 09:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

CUJO_1970
01-09-2006, 10:25 PM
Wow, the line for the short, yellow bus is getting longer and longer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tagert is there in line in his man-diaper, El Aurens is there in his tin-foil hat, and Hayate is bringing up the rear with his skullcap with the propellor on top.

Gibbage is already in the front seat picking his nose.

In short, this report is nothing new.

It is a _bench test_ conducted in the first week of March, 1944.

In Ohio.

In a _laboratory_ on a _test stand_ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


Anybody who reads Vees for Victory knows that Allison tested the V-1710s for higher boost pressures using high octane fuel, ADI, as well as with a number of mechanical tweaks.

That's all this report is - a successful bench test of an Allison engine in a _lab_ on a _test stand_ in _Ohio_

British engineer Roy Fedden wrote in his post-war analysis of German piston engines that the BMW 801 was producing 2,600hp in a _lab_ on a _test stand_

Gee, maybe we can get Oleg to put it in the sim and it can fly on servers with the 4000hp, 75" P-38J, the 109Z, and the I-185.

=============================================

Now, what happened when they put 150 octane into an actual P-38 and tried to fly an actual mission with it, after the bench tests at Wright Field?


P-38 pilot Ed Giller tells us:

"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 percent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubber gloves when fueling an aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes out on low cruise, many engines bean to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of the metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half of the engines. Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions.


Ed Giller confirms the Wright Field bench test, and further confirms the truth about what happened when they actually tried in a P-38 on a mission.

I thought this part of Ed Giller's quote was particularly interesting:

The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions.


We also have on record Roger Freeman, who knew more about the 8th AF than probably anyone.

After specifically commenting on the testing of 150 grade avgas on p.185 of his excellent Mighty Eighth War Manual he states:

"But faced with continuing technical problems a decision was made to convert all P-38 groups to P-51s."

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Wow, the line for the short, yellow bus is getting longer and longer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tagert is there in line in his man-diaper, El Aurens is there in his tin-foil hat, and Hayate is bringing up the rear with his skullcap with the propellor on top.

Gibbage is already in the front seat picking his nose.

In short, this report is nothing new.

It is a _bench test_ conducted in the first week of March, 1944.

In Ohio.

In a _laboratory_ on a _test stand_ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


Anybody who reads Vees for Victory knows that Allison tested the V-1710s for higher boost pressures using high octane fuel, ADI, as well as with a number of mechanical tweaks.

That's all this report is - a successful bench test of an Allison engine in a _lab_ on a _test stand_ in _Ohio_

British engineer Roy Fedden wrote in his post-war analysis of German piston engines that the BMW 801 was producing 2,600hp in a _lab_ on a _test stand_

Gee, maybe we can get Oleg to put it in the sim and it can fly on servers with the 4000hp, 75" P-38J, the 109Z, and the I-185.

=============================================

Now, what happened when they put 150 octane into an actual P-38 and tried to fly an actual mission with it, after the bench tests at Wright Field?


P-38 pilot Ed Giller tells us:

"In the spring of 1944, a technical expert with some drums of 150-octane gasoline showed up at our airbase. This they claimed would give us 10 percent more power on our engines. The stuff was so corrosive everybody had to wear rubber gloves when fueling an aircraft. After one or two ships tried it out, we loaded the whole group and took off on a mission. After 90 minutes out on low cruise, many engines bean to run rough followed shortly thereafter by many engines throwing a rod. The whole mission was aborted and we staggered back to England. On landing, examination of the plugs showed every one to be so fully leaded that they looked like a solid chunk of the metal. Every plug in that squadron had to be changed plus over half of the engines. Needless to say, that expert and his gasoline were drummed out of England. The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions.


Ed Giller confirms the Wright Field bench test, and further confirms the truth about what happened when they actually tried in a P-38 on a mission.

I thought this part of Ed Giller's quote was particularly interesting:

The test unit in the United States never tested the gasoline under our conditions.


We also have on record Roger Freeman, who knew more about the 8th AF than probably anyone.

After specifically commenting on the testing of 150 grade avgas on p.185 of his excellent Mighty Eighth War Manual he states:

"But faced with continuing technical problems a decision was made to convert all P-38 groups to P-51s." Watching CUJO have a melt down online... Priceless!

CUJO_1970
01-09-2006, 10:27 PM
Hey Tagert,

You SAAVY?

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Hey Tagert,

You SAAVY? SAVVY is spelt with TWO V's as in "V for Victory"

NOT

TWO A's as in ***hat

CUJO_1970
01-09-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Watching CUJO have a melt down online... Priceless!


Actually, I'm laughing my as s off and have been since the start of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Actually, I'm laughing my as s off and have been since the start of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well put the mirror down for a second and check out the links I posted

CUJO_1970
01-09-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
UFO/FANTACY naysayers to STFU!


FANTACY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif - oops looks like you spelled "fantasy" wrong.

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 10:40 PM
Oh gawd, when these little chumps start pickin' at tagert's spelling....they know they've lost.

Sorry coojoe_2112, you just beed pwned.

http://redbirdnation.blogspot.com/knockout%20289x175.jpg

CUJO_1970
01-09-2006, 10:43 PM
I didn't click on your dumb link...didn't the first time you posted it and won't regardless of how many times you post it - so knock yourself out(please) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Whatever it is, I doubt it's very interesting now that I put your little document into it's correct context.

AKA_TAGERT
01-09-2006, 10:47 PM
This just in..
<span class="ev_code_yellow">
Tachyon1000
CUJO_1970
Aaron_GT
OldMan____
JG5_UnKle
carguy_
Hetzer_II</span>

Have put together a group voice response to my resent post and sent it to me via PM. They gave me permission to post it here.

Naysayer Group Response to 75"MP documents (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/LuftwhinerNaysayerResponce.wav)

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Hristo_</span> had this further to say

Hristo_€s personal response to 75"MP documents (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/kingofthesmacktardsresponce.wav)

Hristo_
01-09-2006, 11:29 PM
Tagert, keep up the good work !

Your crusade will help introduce BMW 801F, 801TS, 801TJ, 801TU and 801TH for the Fw 190A-9 (roughly 20-30% more powerful than current Fw 190A-9 engines, significantly surpassing the Dora's Jumo, even at altitude).

Yes, a Mustang-Mk-III-catching-4-cannon-armed Focke Wulf. With that plane available, I'm all for you to get a 4000 hp P-38. Unlike P-38, though, Fw 190A could handle those engines.

See, we can all live in peace. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-10-2006, 12:16 AM
Geezuz, its hard to believe these people exist sometimes,

U really have this much time to waste on this sh*t? You should get out more... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Hristo_
01-10-2006, 04:10 AM
bump http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
01-10-2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Tagert, keep up the good work !

Your crusade will help introduce BMW 801F, 801TS, 801TJ, 801TU and 801TH for the Fw 190A-9 (roughly 20-30% more powerful than current Fw 190A-9 engines, significantly surpassing the Dora's Jumo, even at altitude).

Yes, a Mustang-Mk-III-catching-4-cannon-armed Focke Wulf. With that plane available, I'm all for you to get a 4000 hp P-38. Unlike P-38, though, Fw 190A could handle those engines.

See, we can all live in peace. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't forget the A-lader Dora. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
01-10-2006, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970: blah...blah...blah...


Did you read the report I posted? Apparently not. The manifold pressure numbers in the report I posted were being used in the field by the RAAF, RAF and USAAF in P40 aircraft.

The dyno runs by Allison were done to confirm the numbers obtained in the field.

I'd say you are the one with the tin foil hat on.

CUJO_1970
01-10-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Did you read the report I posted? Apparently not. The manifold pressure numbers in the report I posted were being used in the field by the RAAF, RAF and USAAF in P40 aircraft.

The dyno runs by Allison were done to confirm the numbers obtained in the field.

I'd say you are the one with the tin foil hat on.



I have the entire report El Aurens, not just the 1 page you posted, it's not a new report.

The report deals with the -39 and -73 power plants in the P-40, not the P-38.

The P-38 powerplants are not discussed in that report, they are completely different engine setups and they are different aircraft with different cowlings, different chargers etc.


What you are suggesting would be like me posting a report showing the BMW 801TJ with a turbo-supercharger and a ceiling above 40,000ft and trying to trying to apply that performance to a mechanically supercharged A-series FW190.


Apples and Oranges El Aurens.

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 07:25 AM
So.. to summarise.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/p-38-75inch-prelim-wer.jpg
A document detailing a prelimenary test of an Allison V-1710-91 at 2000 b.h.p @ 3000 r.p.m and 75 inches manifold pressure.
It concludes the engine passed the test in accordance with Army Specificatiom for 7-1/2 hours at WEP.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engdiv-16-march-44.jpg
Following the premiliminary test, flight tests were conducted on P-38s with said Allison V-1710-91(89) engine, at said 2000 b.h.p @ 3000 r.p.m and 75 inches manifold pressure.
It concludes with the clearing of the engine in accordance with the 7-1/2 hour WER requirement.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg
Document detailing the clearance for use of 150 grade gas with Allison engines.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html
Document noting the difficulty, and subsequent solution to using 150 grade fuel for the P-38.
70-75 inches MP mentioned, in reference to previous Tests.

Document establishing new permitable MP limits for use with 150 octane fuel
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/8thaf-limits.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Tagert, keep up the good work !

Your crusade will help introduce BMW 801F, 801TS, 801TJ, 801TU and 801TH for the Fw 190A-9 (roughly 20-30% more powerful than current Fw 190A-9 engines, significantly surpassing the Dora's Jumo, even at altitude).

Yes, a Mustang-Mk-III-catching-4-cannon-armed Focke Wulf. With that plane available, I'm all for you to get a 4000 hp P-38. Unlike P-38, though, Fw 190A could handle those engines.

See, we can all live in peace. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Watching Hristo_ change his tune and to start calling for UFO/FANTACY BMW engines.. Priceless.

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Don't forget the A-lader Dora. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Im just glad to see that you all agree that the 66"MP P38L LATE was NOT a UFO/FANTACY plane.. i.e. watch the right hand (75"MP) as the move the shell with my left hand (66"MP).

Suckers.. hook, line, and sinker. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
hmmmm... and you call this "proof"?

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8407/austin016zy.jpg Yeaa Baby!

But if that aint enough for you, go here

Spitfire Performance on 150 fuel (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

robban75
01-10-2006, 08:48 AM
Well, there is this little thing called irony. You of all people should know what irony is. Right, Tagert?

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Well, there is this little thing called irony. You of all people should know what irony is. Right, Tagert? Sure, you can come over to my house and irony my shirts and pants any time you feel like it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

But, Before you do that.. Answer me one simple question.. What part of what I said, i.e.

Originally posted by the Naysayer killer multiple times on every page of this thread:
All in all guys, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the naysayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?
Do you, and yours, not understand?

robban75
01-10-2006, 08:53 AM
I'd rather not. But thanks for the invitation though!

noace
01-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Congrats TAGERT, you have caught the fish of your life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Unbelievable people taking this serious.

noace

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
I'd rather not. But thanks for the invitation though! You sure? tell you what, for ever shirt you irony, Ill graph one of your silly data tables.. Deal? With one condition, you have to provide the orginal track file too, so I can show how far off your eye-balling results are from what actully went on in the sim.

Brain32
01-10-2006, 09:04 AM
Unbelievable people taking this serious.


With the eruption of "RED" whining lately I don't find this so unbelievable...

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
With the eruption of "RED" whining lately I don't find this so unbelievable... Hey Brain, maybe your a little smarter than the rest? Thus maybe you can answer me this quetion? Why is blue's panties in such a wad about 75" when I said the following..


Originally posted by the Naysayer killer multiple times on every page of this thread:
All in all guys, I didn€t post this info with the hopes and or expiations that Oleg would bump it up to 75" let alone 70€. I€m sure he has his reasons for limiting it to 66"MP. My real motivation was to provide this info in the hopes that it would once and for all cause the naysayers to STFU with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of fantasy plane. It was not, in that the in-game P38L LATE operating at 66€MP was a very common thing, and was operating at a conservative level, in that it was cleared for 75€MP operation. That is to say, welcome to my rope-a-dope! YOU SAVVY?
Can you explain how you and yours not only missed this disclaimer on every page.. but have yet to address it and avoid it like the bird flu?

Hristo_
01-10-2006, 09:12 AM
Tagert should receive thanks from Fw 190 community, as he supports methods which would include all BMW 801 proposed varients, as well as A-lader for the Dora.

WTG ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
01-10-2006, 09:42 AM
I don`t see any change.Still taking bench test data for granted.No proof 66" was being used by P38 squads normally.

Just like they tried to overclock the PIV CPU in a freezer.The cpu had neen o'clocked to 4,5Ghz already with a very good cooling device.So they tried to o'clock it more with use of a freezer.They got almost to 6Ghz.So granted the PIV has a authentic freezer cooling device,it can run on 6GHz.Others don`t do this since they don`t use the freezer to cool the cpu.It can be run on 6GHz which does not mean it is ran on the clock freq normally by casual pc overclockers.

Same with P38@66" let alone @75".

Show us a credible document that states 66"(75") being used by more than two/three squads.

A simple ---"66" is known to be used by ???FG,???FG and ???FG succesfully from [example] January '44-May'44" --- would do,TAGERT.


Get yourself together.

Brain32
01-10-2006, 09:57 AM
Can you explain how you and yours not only missed this disclaimer on every page.. but have yet to address it and avoid it like the bird flu?

I believe I can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
1. Let's look at a human nature first, fact is that people got tired of P38 discussions over this days so they tend to react much faster, not thinking or reading with same dedication as in first post on P38 issues.
2. Look how you formed your topic: " P38L LATE: Will the MP be increased from 66"MP to 75"MP?" I'm sorry m8 but that form can easily be understood as:"P38L Late needs to be increased to 75"MP"
3.Look at your first post:

Found this

Report showing the P38 using 150 octane was cleared for 75"MP

So? Will the P38L LATE be increased from the current 66"MP to 75"MP or at least 70"MP?
Can you notice the structure: Presented evidence, and request...
Well in your 3rd post you wrote that little disclaimer, I've read it and I believe all read it, later discussions were about 150grade fuel, sparks, etc. Then after Target vs Cujo match witch draw attention of other people topic started to change to RED(USAF) vs BLUE(Luftwaffe)(I participated also in that part - mea culpa). This is where the real problem started, the topic vent semi-OT...

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 09:58 AM
He can't do that because as of yet there don't appear to be any documents with a list of squadrons.

However there is a document, already posted, which clearly states that the new permisable MP of 66 inches is cleared for use with 150 octane fuel for P-38s.

Ergo, it may be likely P-38 squadrons with access to 150 octane fuel were using the higher boosts.

BSS_CUDA
01-10-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:

Show us a credible document that states 66"(75") being used by more than two/three squads.

A simple ---"66" is known to be used by ???FG,???FG and ???FG succesfully from [example] January '44-May'44" --- would do,TAGERT.


Get yourself together.

why just 2-3 squads? why stop there? maybe we could break it down and give you serial# of the plane that used it along with the Pilot name and his ID# plus the General that authorized it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif would you like all that proof before you believe that it WAS approved for use in the field?

faustnik
01-10-2006, 11:03 AM
Wait, are we still arguing the use of 150 grade by P-38L units?

Excuse me, I'm going to go out my head through the wall. I feel the need to do something more productive than argue this point any further.

Aaron_GT
01-10-2006, 11:09 AM
Well, there is this little thing called irony. You of all people should know what irony is

Is it like bronzy?

Aaron_GT
01-10-2006, 11:23 AM
Firstly, Targert, you claim to only want 66" MP, so I am still not clear why you think posting test results on 75" MP is relevant when posting service usage of 66" MP would be the way forwards (I think 66" MP is well supported and suitably valid, so goodness knows why you call me a smacktard and a doubter, but oh well).

AustinPowers,
The first documents you linked show that successful flight tests were conducted at 75"
MP and 150 octane fuel. This is good information, but it still isn't the same as actual indications that it was used in service. This is where my doubt is. A theoretical rating is one thing, but was it used?



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-3.jpg
Document detailing the clearance for use of 150 grade gas with Allison engines.


This does not deal with the engine in the P38, and shows a maximum boost of 60" MP for the Allisons listed and no increase of boost from 130 to 150, so would seem a bad example to use if your argument is for 66" or 75" MP and a boost improvement moving to 150 octane fuel.



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html
Document noting the difficulty, and subsequent solution to using 150 grade fuel for the P-38.
70-75 inches MP mentioned, in reference to previous Tests.

This indicates that 75" might be used. Again the critical evidence would be records of its use not a 'probably'.



Document establishing new permitable MP limits for use with 150 octane fuel

Where is this from? I have no problem believing a 66" MP limit in service, but actual evidence with document headers is what is needed. This having been said, it's already in the game, so it is academic from that point of view.

lrrp22
01-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
He can't do that because as of yet there don't appear to be any documents with a list of squadrons.

However there is a document, already posted, which clearly states that the new permisable MP of 66 inches is cleared for use with 150 octane fuel for P-38s.

Ergo, it may be likely P-38 squadrons with access to 150 octane fuel were using the higher boosts.


I think we already havew the answer to the question of the P-38 and 100/150 grade in operational service.



A US Air Corps. memorandum from the Chief, Petroleum Section to the Chief, Supply Divison, US Army dated 11 July, 1944, Subject: Grade 150 Aviation Fuel, stipulated the following:

The following limiting War Emergency Rating Manifold Pressures have been established by the Eighth Air Force for the different aircraft:

Aircraft--------------Old W.E.R--New W.E.R.
P-38J-----------------60"--------66"
P-47D without water---52"--------62"
P-47D with water------57"--------67"
P-51B-----------------67"--------72"

It is thought that the above manifold pressures may even be increased to some extent using 150 Grade fuel, and roughly speaking the increase in speed of fighter aircraft at altitudes below 20,000 ft. is approximately 25 miles per hour. The increase in the rate of climb is approximately 800 ft. per minute. In addition, manifold pressures can be used at the higher ratings without danger of incipient detonation; this gives a greater factor of safety.




Four Fighter Groups (20th, 55th, 364th and 479th) operated P-38s after VIII FC converted to 100/150 grade in June/July 1944, three of which (20th, 55th and 364th) had transitioned to P-51s by 1 August 44. For whatever reason, VIII FC chose to limit its P-38's to 66" in Hg WER on 100/150, not the 70-75" Hg cleared by Material Command, but it is pretty clear that 66" Hg was used operationally until the 479th converted to P-51s in October '44.

In that same Material Command report, the P-51 was cleared for 75" Hg yet, like the P-38, VIII FC chose to limit its P-51s to a lower WEP (72" Hg) on 100/150 grade. In the case of the Mustang, the more conservative rating may have been due to backfire problems initially experienced with 100/150 grade. Although those problems were quickly remedied, there is no indication that VIII FC ever raised the limit to the previously cleared 75" Hg, let alone the 81" Hg used by VIII FC's neighbors in RAF Fighter Command.

Not all USAAF commands were as conservative as VIII FC, however. It appears that VII Fighter Command on Iwo Jima was more to the RAF's way of thinking since it used 80" Hg WEP on 115/145 grade fuel beginning in April of 1945, but that was a different command with its own set of operating procedures.

Slickun
01-10-2006, 12:07 PM
Thanks, lrrp. You beat me to it.

It appears that, for a very short time, P-38J's, in the 8th AF, were operating high boost levels (66") on 150 octane fuel.

AFAIK, there were no P-38L's operating with the 8th AF. It appears that very few ever operated in the ETO or MTO, none on 150 octane fuel. No P-38L's were ever stationed where it was available.

AFAIK, no 150 octane fuel was delivered to the 9th AF, operating on the continent after D-Day, or to the MTO.

It was not necessary to use 150 octane to operate at higher boost levels, levels that got you to 1725 hp, in the P-38L.

bolillo_loco
01-10-2006, 06:12 PM
Slickun, what would lead you to believe that very few P-38L models were in the ETO and MTO? I guess you missed my photo graphic post a few months back. The P-38L was used by the 9th Air Force in the ETO and the P-38L was used extensively by the 12th and 15th Air Force in the MTO.

You made this statement, "It appears that very few ever operated in the ETO or MTO," now do you mean very few operated in these two theaters or do you mean on 150 avgas?

Slickun
01-10-2006, 08:51 PM
Per our agonizingly long discussion about this very thing, a few months back (I'm sure you remember it), a thread featuring a LOT of Kahuna, I came away with the idea that:

No P-38L's flew operationally with the 8th AF.
There were possibly a few that flew with the 9th.
There were a few more that flew in the MTO.

There were no units made up exclusively of L's in the ETO or MTO, they were a piecemeal replacement for J models, units were made up of a combination, mostly J's.

No L's operated on 150, anyway it wasn't needed to operate at 1725 hp.

None of the above came from me, but from you and Kahuna. You had basically dropped out of the discussion, after some prodding Kahuna provided some anecdotal evidence L's were available in small numbers outside the 8th. I researched the availablibility of L models in the 8th AF, other than that I listened to you two.

If you can add to our knowledge of the numbers involved, I promise I'm all ears.

I DID miss the graphic you reference above.

bolillo_loco
01-10-2006, 09:45 PM
slickun, with your "few" statements I am getting the impression, but not sure if you're trying to minimize the use of P-38Ls in the 9th and especially the 12th and 15th Air Force in the MTO.

Of the nine fighter squadrons that used the P-38 in the 9th, six units used P-38s until late February to March, and the three continued to use them until the end of the war, The 474th F/G, did indeed fly a mixed bag of P-38J-15s, P-38J-20s, P-38J-25s, P-38L-1s, P-38L-5s, and apparently some pre-P-38J-25s that were brought up to P-38J-25 standards. There is a lot of text and photographic evidence to suggest that these units had more than "a few" just by pilot's references, combat sorties (listing plane type), and combat losses (also listing plane type). From what I gathered they indeed flew a mixed bag.

The 12th and 15th A/F in the MTO received a lot of P-38Ls and there is substantial photographic evidence, text evidence, pilot's comments, mission reports, and the like to support that more than "just a few more" served in the MTO. Since Mustangs were in demand by the 8th A/F in England, the other theaters received few Mustangs until late in the war when production of the Mustang became sufficient to send them to the MTO, CBI, PTO, and other such theaters of operation. Due to this fact, the P-38 was used extensively in the MTO. The P-47D lacked the needed range to carry out the missions flown in the MTO, which rivaled and often exceeded the range flown by the 8th A/F in England. Flying out of Foggia, Italy, MTO missions included bomber escort to targets as distant as Ploesti and Berlin, a task that the P-47D obviously wasn't up to. Even when Mustangs began to show up in great numbers in the MTO by mid to late 1944, P-38s still flew long range high altitude bomber escort for 12th and 15th A/F bombers.

P-38s were never prevalent in any theater of operations that they served in, which is every theater. Even in the PTO, where nobody seems to challenge that it did serve, it wasn't king in terms of numbers. The 5th A/F in the SWP that probably contributed to making the Lightning famous was dominated by P-47s and finally P-51s. For example, In January 1944, the 5th A/F in the SWP had nineteen squadrons of fighters, eleven were equipped with P-47Ds, four had P-38s, three flew P-40s, and one flew a mixed bag of P-39s and P-40s. Nearly 58% of the 5th A/F was comprised of P-47Ds in early 1944, by the end of that same year, nearly all the P-47Ds were replaced by P-51s.

I hope you can see that mixed P-38 units were common no matter what the theater of operations were. The reason is simple; there was only one production facility that produced Lightnings, while the Mustang and Thunderbolt both had a second production facility. While a second one was started, it happened so late in the war that it contributed very little to the total production of P-38s. Because the P-38 was in demand in every theater of operations, it's easy to understand why they weren't as prevalent in terms of numbers regardless of where they were deployed. I've never understood why the war production board left Curtis produce P-40s until November 1944. It doesn't make sense when one considers that the WPB could have ordered them to produce more capable aircraft such as the P-38, P-47, or the P-51. There are dozens of aircraft and engine manufacturers that wasted time and materials trying to produce their own engines or fighters that could have been ordered by the WPB to produce P&W, Allison, Packard Merlin, and other fighters, but for one reason or another, politics, over-sight, or whatever, were permitted to continue with their "hair brain schemes."

I'm sorry that you missed my P-38J-25, P-38L-1, and P-38L-5 in the ETO and MTO thread. It included some fifty to sixty photos (some being multiple above mentioned aircraft in one picture) and text documentation that the above mentioned aircraft served in the above mentioned theaters of operation.

I never stated that P-38Ls served in the 8th A/F nor have I have I charged that they used 150 avgas. I've seen others state that 150 avgas was used by several P-38 units and their support seemed credible, but I have never personally researched P-38s and 150 avgas. I would seriously doubt anybody who stated that P-38Ls were used by 8th A/F units. I have personally read and re-read well over 40 books written on units that used the P-38 and I've never read about the use of P-38Ls in the 8th A/F. I am sure I haven't read them all, but I would doubt any saw service. The 20th, 55th, and 364th used P-38s until July or August of 1944. The 479th used P-38s until October 1944. That makes up all the P-38 F/Gs in the 8th A/F that used the P-38. I recently read "The 479th Fighter Group in WWII," and it appears as if they received P-38J-25s as replacement aircraft. I think that I read that all 200+ P-38J-25s went to the ETO. I'm not sure if the P-38J-25s that surfaced in the MTO were ETO hand-me-downs or not.

I don't recall if 150 avgas was needed in the F-30s to make the 1,725 hp. I know I've read that it did, but I'm not sure if I've read that it didn't need the 150 avgas to do it. I recently poked around in some books and came up with the 70 inHgA was maximum on 100/130 avgas as per Allison testing and some anecdotal pilot's evidence of pulling the above mentioned inHgA on 100/130 avgas. What I find interesting is how the F17s (V-1710-89/91s) and F30s (V-1710-111/113s) have the same exact hp ratings, even in the pilot's manual. The reason I bring this up is that about half the books I have that list hp ratings, list different figures for 54 inHgA. For example, half my books list 1,475 hp @ 54 inHgA using 3,000 rpm for the F-30s, while the other half list the same rating as the F17s (1,425hp @ 54 inHgA using 3,000 rpm. Which books are right? Did the F30s in fact produce more hp at the same rpm and inHgA? I wouldn't doubt they did, but I've only enough information to raise a question. Most books that are written use other books for reference, hence modern day books have entire pages that list their sources, including dozens of previously written books. Author X writes a book in 1950. The book includes misinformation or false information either by printing errors, lack of proper research, on purpose, or by accident. This incorrect information is perpetuated by dozens of other authors who write books after him, but use his book for reference. I hope you can see how easy it is to perpetuate false information either by accident or on purpose.

faustnik
01-10-2006, 10:44 PM
I don't recall if 150 avgas was needed in the F-30s to make the 1,725 hp. I know I've read that it did, but I'm not sure if I've read that it didn't need the 150 avgas to do it.


Well, Bodie talks at length about detonation being the limiting factor. Higher octane fuel is more resistant to pre-detonation right?

I have had a lot of discussions with Crumpp (he is one of the guys rebuilding BMW801Ds with the White One Project) about the same issues with Fw190s. From his research, he found that it actually came down to a engine by engine basis for rating. Some engine could run high boost pressures easily, some had more trouble. I don't see why the same wouldn't hold true for Allisons? Ground crews knew their engines, and if a good pair could run high boost comfortably, I bet they let the pilot know.

Just a thought.

AKA_TAGERT
01-10-2006, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't recall if 150 avgas was needed in the F-30s to make the 1,725 hp. I know I've read that it did, but I'm not sure if I've read that it didn't need the 150 avgas to do it.


Well, Bodie talks at length about detonation being the limiting factor. Higher octane fuel is more resistant to pre-detonation right?

I have had a lot of discussions with Crumpp (he is one of the guys rebuilding BMW801Ds with the White One Project) about the same issues with Fw190s. From his research, he found that it actually came down to a engine by engine basis for rating. Some engine could run high boost pressures easily, some had more trouble. I don't see why the same wouldn't hold true for Allisons? Ground crews knew their engines, and if a good pair could run high boost comfortably, I bet they let the pilot know.

Just a thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are two ways to get higher MP. Use higher octane, or the ability to cool off the air. The later 38s (J's and L's) with the rewored cooling system could do both.

Gibbage1
01-10-2006, 11:51 PM
The L's engine was certified to 1725HP using standard fuel, NOT 150 grade.

faustnik
01-11-2006, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
There are two ways to get higher MP. Use higher octane, or the ability to cool off the air. The later 38s (J's and L's) with the rewored cooling system could do both.

I understand that. My thought was just that maybe some Allisons required 150 grade to operate at high boost pressures and some didn't?

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 06:43 AM
S!

There are several sources that list the P38L F-30 engines at 1725hp :

Vee for Victory
Allison Aircraft Engines
Warren Bodie Lockheed Engineer/Aviation Historian--P38 Lightning book

The F-30 engine was beefed up on the bottom end with a larger crankshaft and counter weights along with an increase in the crankcase main bearings. The F-30 was also tested and rated on 100/130 grade fuel by Allison at 1725hp.

Bodie in his P38 book list the top speed of the P38L at 443mph TAS.

After months of testing it was determined that P38 engines were not detonating due to manifold pressure be it high or low MAP. According to emails from Bodie and a fuel expert from Britain named White, the problem was liquid fuel collecting in the intake manifold during long cruises at low power settings. This also caused spark plug fouling. White said that Rolls Royce commecial engines suffered the same fate after WW2 and the problem was solved by heating the fuel prior to the intake manifold.

I posted this email from White in another thread, since then my computer took a dive and I lost this info.

Another interesting subject is the way PTO vs ETO P38 pilots were trained to operate their engines. The ETO pilots used low manifold pressure and higher RPM settings(trained new pilots). Unknowingly, these engine settings contributed to liquid fuel collecting in the intake manifold. The PTO P38 pilots trained by Charles Lindberg used high manifold pressure and low RPM settings. Lindbergh taught these pilots to extend their range by 1-1.5 hrs. This story along with links was posted last year.

The document posted in the beginning of this thread says 2 P38 groups and 1 P47 group were using 150 grade fuel accross the channel. Very interesting, but it does not name those Sqdns.

In the PTO, 115/145 grade fuel was being used. The P51D's on Iwo Jima ran thier boost at 80" MAP. High boosts were being used unofficaily by US Fighter Groups in both the ETO & PTO. When cleared by the 8th AF for conservative MAP settings with 150 grade fuel, most Fighter Groups ran higher MAP values to gain further performance. US Fighter pilots have said many many times when interviewed that they would rather tear the engines from their motor mounts or detonate the engine than be shot down.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg



___

AustinPowers_
01-11-2006, 08:58 AM
What's the difference in performance between a P-38J pulling 66"MP and a P-38L pulling 66"MP.

Did anyone ask Oleg for a 1944 P-38J using 150 octane?

AKA_TAGERT
01-11-2006, 09:17 AM
So, it is official than?

In light of all this info only a smack-tard would refer to the 66"MP rating as a UFO/FANTACY setting.

Can a brother get an amen?

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 09:39 AM
AMEN


/me notices the deafening absense of a certain 109 loving member of this forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Hristo_
01-11-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So, it is official than?

In light of all this info only a smack-tard would refer to the 66"MP rating as a UFO/FANTACY setting.

Can a brother get an amen?

Well, in light of all your namecalling, I'll say 66" is the king of UFO/FANTACY engines.

Amen

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 09:51 AM
S!



What's the difference in performance between a P-38J pulling 66"MP and a P-38L pulling 66"MP.

Did anyone ask Oleg for a 1944 P-38J using 150 octane?



Hya Megile,

The F-30 was the stronger engine and capable of sustaining 3200 RPM. But in your scenario it is a close call in HP. The higher the MAP pulled the more engine power produced.

The P38J on 150 grade fuel was included in the info I sent Oleg on the overboosted P47D on 150 fuel. I did not expect the P38J to be changed to operating on 150 fuel, since we have the P38L Late. I asked for a P47M flight model and was turned down and instead got the P47D on 150 grade fuel. While I am grateful for this I would of rather wanted the actual real P47M F/M. I also asked for the P51D on 150 grade fuel and 72" MAP and was turned down and reminded that we had the Mustang III. I tried to stress the point that the P51D operating on 72" MAP was historicaly accurate and also had a bubble canopy and 2 more .50cals--jury is still out on this one, it's iffy.



As for the P38J, I would be more interested in seeing the correct climb rate and compression for both the P38J & L. Both are incorrect.

I am also starting to think that the P38 stall speed is too high--read below.

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/articles/p38_ltng/p-38_head_on.jpg

From Jeff Ethell at Flight Journal Magazine Flying the P38L

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_1.asp


The single dominant impression is this thing is smooth and effortless to fly€"quite unlike the more complex warbird types. Managing both engines quickly becomes second nature. Stalls are docile; just a rumble as the airflow starts to break up and move toward the wingtips€"no tip-stalling tendencies. To recover, just relax backpressure and fly away while shoving the throttles to full power with no worry of a snap-roll. At a 15,000-pound gross weight, a power-off gear- and flaps-down stall is 70mph! Those Fowler flaps are superb.



_____

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 09:58 AM
S!


Hristo better known as Axis Sally,
dont you have some illeagel wire taps or radio
intercepts to perform ?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__

noace
01-11-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Hristo better known as Axis Sally,
dont you have some illeagel wire taps or radio
intercepts to perform ?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__

No need for him as the NSA does this worldwide for us. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

n oace

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Hristo better known as Axis Sally,
dont you have some illeagel wire taps or radio
intercepts to perform ?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__


OMG Rofl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


No need for him as the NSA does this worldwide for us. Wink

rumor is Hristo works for the NSA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 10:20 AM
no tip-stalling tendencies.

ya like we dont see that ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

GR142_Astro
01-11-2006, 10:23 AM
Regrettably, Ethell was killed by stalling a P38 out of the sky, possibly on one engine. I haven't done any testing. What is the stall speed of the FB P38s?

At the moment, I am having a blast stall-fighting 190s and even some 109s on the deck. Most 190 drivers soil their trousers when they finally realize they cannot out turn the FTD.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

faustnik
01-11-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:


Well, in light of all your namecalling, I'll say 66" is the king of UFO/FANTACY engines.

Amen

Well, at least you and HayateAce cancel each other out. Where is he anyway? We need to fight clowns with clowns.

carguy_
01-11-2006, 10:27 AM
If being a smacktard means an intelligent person who is objective,careful and takes only reasonable proof for a thesis then by all means I am a smacktard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The 66" setting is still a UFO/FANTACY setting due to lack of proof of being used widely.

faustnik
01-11-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
If being a smacktard means an intelligent person who is objective,careful and takes only reasonable proof for a thesis then by all means I am a smacktard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The 66" setting is still a UFO/FANTACY setting due to lack of proof of being used widely.

Wait, limited use does not equal fantasy. Where do you get that? The Ta152 was limited use, but, certainly not fantasy.

Tagert is not wrong just because he is obnoxious.

carguy_
01-11-2006, 10:36 AM
You cannot use a plane in a coop scenario because few planes got to the power nuff said

faustnik
01-11-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
You cannot use a plane in a coop scenario because few planes got to the power nuff said

What? I think we have proof of at least a couple squadrons. That should be enough to populate a COOP.

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Regrettably, I haven't done any testing. What is the stall speed of the FB P38s?

around 90 MPH, you'll either start to snap stall a wing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif or you'll be going into the somersault thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif RL specs list the 38 stall at 69 MPH

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:


Well, in light of all your namecalling, I'll say 66" is the king of UFO/FANTACY engines.

Amen

Well, at least you and HayateAce cancel each other out. Where is he anyway? We need to fight clowns with clowns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> has anyone checked IP's they might be the same person http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
01-11-2006, 10:51 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 faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:


Well, in light of all your namecalling, I'll say 66" is the king of UFO/FANTACY engines.

Amen

Well, at least you and HayateAce cancel each other out. Where is he anyway? We need to fight clowns with clowns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> has anyone checked IP's they might be the same person http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure they look alike, big red nose, floppy shoes.

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 10:56 AM
S!



Regrettably, Ethell was killed by stalling a P38 out of the sky, possibly on one engine. I haven't done any testing. What is the stall speed of the FB P38s?



Actualy Ethell forgot to turn the fuel switch to reserve in a modified fuel tank P38L. Fuel starvation stopped both engines. Jeff Ethell was a quality person, very sad indeed.



___

Hristo_
01-11-2006, 12:05 PM
Jeff Ethell, like Thomas McGuire 50 years earlier, considered the P-38 excellent and maneuverable. The P-38, in turn, killed them by stalling. Both men were quite experienced pilots.

AustinPowers_
01-11-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
The P38J on 150 grade fuel was included in the info I sent Oleg on the overboosted P47D on 150 fuel. I did not expect the P38J to be changed to operating on 150 fuel, since we have the P38L Late. I asked for a P47M flight model and was turned down and instead got the P47D on 150 grade fuel.

Cheers for the info dude.

robban75
01-11-2006, 12:26 PM
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 GR142_Astro:
Regrettably, I haven't done any testing. What is the stall speed of the FB P38s?

around 90 MPH, you'll either start to snap stall a wing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif or you'll be going into the somersault thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif RL specs list the 38 stall at 69 MPH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38 in landing configuration stalls at 56 MPH in-game, but in order to stall it one has to put into a 30 deg climb, use all the trim in the world and full back stick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-11-2006, 12:27 PM
S!


Hristo_
Posted Wed January 11 2006 11:05
Jeff Ethell, like Thomas McGuire 50 years earlier, considered the P-38 excellent and maneuverable. The P-38, in turn, killed them by stalling. Both men were quite experienced pilots.



A very simplistic statement on your part devoid of all discernable facts. McGuire tried to keep his drop tanks on and engage so he could finish his mission, which by the way would change the stall properties. A large mistake by a 38 kill ace. And as stated before Ethell's P38 engines were starved of fuel and simply quit running.

McGuire on more than one occasion claimed to hang by his prop at 90mph in a slow speed turn and shoot down japanese aircraft.

Ethell--"At a 15,000-pound gross weight, a power-off gear- and flaps-down stall is 70mph! Those Fowler flaps are superb."

The stall qualities of the P38 are very good and if you are stalling out full power can be applied without the worry of a torque induced spin.


__

BSS_CUDA
01-11-2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Jeff Ethell, like Thomas McGuire 50 years earlier, considered the P-38 excellent and maneuverable. The P-38, in turn, killed them by stalling. Both men were quite experienced pilots. in both cases it was Pilot error not the fault of the Aircraft

Grey_Mouser67
01-11-2006, 07:13 PM
Can't speak for the first guy, but Mcguire was killed because he didn't drop his tanks.

The lightning was unstable and was tricky to manuever with stores on its pylons between the engines. Had Mcguire dropped his tanks, he'd probably still be alive....lots of misconceptions about the handling of the Lightning...reminds me of the myths surrounding the full tank behind the pilot of a Mustang as well as the yaw in a bubble 47 before fin and the "Ensign eliminator".

The Lightning was a gentle giant. There is no better aircraft to fly close to the ground because of its stall characteristics.

AKA_TAGERT
01-11-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
You cannot use a plane in a coop scenario because few planes got to the power nuff said ROTFLMAO! You poor thing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-11-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
me notices the deafening absense of a certain 109 loving member of this forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif He is deaf too? Poor thing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gibbage1
01-11-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Can't speak for the first guy, but Mcguire was killed because he didn't drop his tanks.

The lightning was unstable and was tricky to manuever with stores on its pylons between the engines. Had Mcguire dropped his tanks, he'd probably still be alive....lots of misconceptions about the handling of the Lightning...reminds me of the myths surrounding the full tank behind the pilot of a Mustang as well as the yaw in a bubble 47 before fin and the "Ensign eliminator".

The Lightning was a gentle giant. There is no better aircraft to fly close to the ground because of its stall characteristics.

You are correct. The drop tanks or bombs created turbulance between the engine and center gondola. It was not a COG issue but an aerodynamics issue. Bongs wing men asked McGuire to drop his tanks, but he refused and paid the price.

carguy_
01-12-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
What? I think we have proof of at least a couple squadrons. That should be enough to populate a COOP.


A couple of squads?@66"?In WWII?In Europe?

Ok then,lets assume am blind hence I did not see anything here stating few squads used it without getting broken angines for more than say 15 missions.If they did then it was perfectly safe.

So show me the text from which in a straight line we can conclude few squads used 66" for more than 15missions?(number of 15 missions is just an example;we want to know it was perfectly safe to fly @66" by your normal P38 pilot and in fact WAS FLOWN)

AustinPowers_
01-12-2006, 06:48 AM
15 missions? hmmm

do you know the service life of BF-109s for the same time period? 15 missions is an eternity no?

BSS_CUDA
01-12-2006, 08:03 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 carguy_:

Show us a credible document that states 66"(75") being used by more than two/three squads.

A simple ---"66" is known to be used by ???FG,???FG and ???FG succesfully from [example] January '44-May'44" --- would do,TAGERT.


Get yourself together.

why just 2-3 squads? why stop there? maybe we could break it down and give you serial# of the plane that used it along with the Pilot name and his ID# plus the General that authorized it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif would you like all that proof before you believe that it WAS approved for use in the field? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


what did I tell you. they will never be satisfied, first it was its a UFO/Fantasy plane, next it was prove what squads it flew in, now its prove they flew over 15 missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif so whats next do you want to see photographic evidence of the sparkplugs not fouling? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif or would you like accounts of the German planes it encountered during combat?

Slickun
01-12-2006, 08:19 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
slickun, with your "few" statements I am getting the impression, but not sure if you're trying to minimize the use of P-38Ls in the 9th and especially the 12th and 15th Air Force in the MTO.


bolillo_loco, I don't KNOW how many P-38L's served with the 9th, or in the MTO. I was very clear on that. I was very clear that you and Kahuna are the source I use for there being ANY. I researched the 8th AF, and there is no record of any L's serving. I never said you claimed that.

That said, I was hoping like heck you could supply some sort of substantive number. You didn't. I'm assuming you don't know.

We are left to argue what "a few" means. You think, due to some photographs and pilot anecdotes, there were, what, a LOT?

OK. Fine. I don't CARE if it was a lot, or a few. Just how many? It shouldn't be that hard. Surely in one of your 80 or so reference books on the Lightning there is SOMETHING substantive?

Your inability, and mine, to find a real number leaves it open to words like "a few" being used to describe it.

Slickun
01-12-2006, 08:30 AM
Fellas, as far as I can tell, we have no PROOF P-38J's used higher power settings in the 8th AF.

What we have is proof that there was clearance for its use, and that there were P-38J's still in the 8th AF during the "window" between approval and dissolution of the FG.

I would LOVE to see something that tells us J's DID, for sure, operate at higher map settings. There has been several posts regarding an 8th AF test that shot this down. Where are we on this?

AKA_TAGERT
01-12-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
what did I tell you. they will never be satisfied, first it was its a UFO/Fantasy plane, next it was prove what squads it flew in, now its prove they flew over 15 missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif so whats next do you want to see photographic evidence of the sparkplugs not fouling? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif or would you like accounts of the German planes it encountered during combat? Exactly! Because next it will be "what did the pilots have for breakfast?" and "how much mud did they have on their shoes that morning?" on top of that a picture of the MP gauge(s) *during* a dog fight.. As if the pilot didn€t have anything better to do, because god knows a dyno-meter is not enough proof!

Yes, you would need all those things and a dyno-meter in tow during a dog fight just to *begin* to impress a smack-tard.. Note, not prove it to a smack-tard.. begin to *impress* a smack-tard! In that there will never be enough proof to prove it to a smack-tard.

The good news is we don€t have to provide that level of detail.. for a reasonable person to understand. The level of detail and proof provided up to now is clearly enough for reasonable people.. Reasonable enough that a hard to impress person like Oleg felt it was enough to justify the addition of the P38L LATE that runs at 1725hp the 66"MP mark.

Therefore do as I do, ignore the smack-tards with regards to a reasonable discussions and enjoy them for what they are truly good at.. comic relief!

That and feel free to use their knee-jerk reaction against them to set up a bait and switch for a rope-a-dope that shows them for what they truly are!

It's does not get any better than that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
01-12-2006, 09:05 AM
15 missions perfectly safe?

There were no planes that flew, ever, in a perfectly safe configuration.

AAF planes that flew escort missions in Europe built up a lot of flying time in 15 missions. If you figure an average of 6 hours/mission, that's some 90 hours. Quite a bit.

We have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that P-38's were operated at more than 60". I believe it to be true, just as I believe that there were a few P-47D's operating at 70" or more, illegally. All these pilots aren't lying. Why would they?

But it would be nice to see some documentation so we can find out how prevalent it was.

Not for a coop.

Not to win an argument.

Just so we KNOW.

BTW. No way the P-38L went 443 mph at 1725 x 2 hp.

faustnik
01-12-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Reasonable enough that a hard to impress person like Oleg felt it was enough to justify the addition of the P38L LATE that runs at 1725hp the 66"MP mark.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Oleg does not change power settings on planes "just 'cause".

anarchy52
01-12-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Reasonable enough that a hard to impress person like Oleg felt it was enough to justify the addition of the P38L LATE that runs at 1725hp the 66"MP mark.


Oleg does not change power settings on planes "just 'cause". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Oleg was so nitpicking in investigation of plane performance as ubi zoo is he would not have published IL-2 the first edition nevermind FB, AEP and PF. We wouldn't have LaGG-3 the way they are or I-185 or FW-190A4 or Bf-109Es ...

And tagert should really seek professional help...he is babbleing.
Agree 100% Disagree 100% FW-190 pixie dust big gold star for effort


100% looney if you ask me.

faustnik
01-12-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

And tagert should really seek professional help...he is babbleing.
Agree 100% Disagree 100% FW-190 pixie dust big gold star for effort


100% looney if you ask me.

Just because he's insane doesn't mean he's wrong.

BSS_CUDA
01-12-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Just because he's insane doesn't mean he's wrong. that deserves a heh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Aviar
01-12-2006, 11:35 AM
[/QUOTE]

Just because he's insane doesn't mean he's wrong.[/QUOTE]

Looks like a winning bumper-sticker to me... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aviar

fordfan25
01-12-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The trend has been that whenever real documentation is shown the "blue" guys jump up and down and scream a lot because they are really tryng to protect their precious Warpclouds stats. And that is the real bottom line here.
Complete and utter BullSh*t!!! You may not be biased about sides in the game but you are about sides(yes unfortunatley we have them) in this community...
You know what is funny? I don't see some people who rock in those slow and undermodelled Spits, P51s come here and whine, fascinating isn't it?
When will you people understand that red planes are not porked? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

when thay stop being porked

berg417448
01-12-2006, 12:27 PM
I found something interesting...This P-38 pilot mentions using 65€ MP in November 1942 in MTO:

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/bizerte/bizerte_2.asp

€œI scrambled back into Tangerine II, fired up the engines and wobbled my way to the end of the runway€"constantly looking for Messerschmitts. I knew how vulnerable I would be on takeoff, but I didn't see enemy fighters.

I stood on the brakes and pushed the throttles against the stops (about 65 inches of manifold pressure) while holding the yoke in my lap. I wanted to get the flat nosewheel off as quickly as I could. At almost the same instant as I released the brakes, the powerful blast of the engines across that big elevator rocked the airplane up onto its main gear, and I held it there until I was off the ground. Once in the air, I began to worry about fuel.€

Slickun
01-12-2006, 12:40 PM
Yep. There is SO much of this sort of thing you are led to believe that the engines were operated at higher-than-published map ratings.

Just how much is the question.

Vrabac
01-12-2006, 01:42 PM
The saddest part of reading through all of this is that most of the participants are grown-ups. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

11 pages of nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The only fun part was when someone said it's all about Warcloud stats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
01-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Vrabac:
The saddest part of reading through all of this is that most of the participants are grown-ups. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

11 pages of nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The only fun part was when someone said it's all about Warcloud stats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You just made it 12 pages of nothing. Congrats!

ElAurens
01-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Vrabac:
The only fun part was when someone said it's all about Warcloud stats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thanks, glad I could inject some humor.

But I think it is true...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bolillo_loco
01-12-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Can't speak for the first guy, but Mcguire was killed because he didn't drop his tanks.

The lightning was unstable and was tricky to manuever with stores on its pylons between the engines. Had Mcguire dropped his tanks, he'd probably still be alive....lots of misconceptions about the handling of the Lightning...reminds me of the myths surrounding the full tank behind the pilot of a Mustang as well as the yaw in a bubble 47 before fin and the "Ensign eliminator".

The Lightning was a gentle giant. There is no better aircraft to fly close to the ground because of its stall characteristics.

We will never know the exact circumstances that lead to McGuire's death. While we have several accounts that paint a basic picture, none of them can give us the details that caused his spin.

I've read about Bong using asymmetric thrust to make his P-38 turn better, roll better, and cause his Lightning to perform maneuvers that were very hard for single engine aircraft to follow. Also, I've read about MTO and 9th A/F ETO P-38 pilots who received their stateside training by combat seasoned PTO P-38 pilots. These combat seasoned P-38 instructors showed air cadets how to use asymmetric thrust to escape a tactical disadvantage or to gain one. My point is the use of asymmetric thrust to increase the P-38's combat ability appears to be something that originated in the PTO by experienced pilots. McGuire obviously qualifies as an experienced pilot so it is entirely possible that he was not only making his P-38 turn as tight as possible with external stores, but also using asymmetric thrust to further aggravate the situation. Then another question can be raised: Did both the 165 gallon drop tanks that McGuire was carrying have the same amount of fuel inside of them? I've read about P-38 pilots, especially in the PTO, who would use all the fuel in one-drop tank first so that they could drop the empty tank and then switch to the other. The idea being that you could rid the aircraft of unwanted drag and increase its range. Now imagine how this situation could have further aggravated McGuire's stall. With out the details that only McGuire or his aircraft could reveal, we can only speculate.

When one considers all the detail about how docile the P-38's stall was and how no tendency to snap into a spin when stalled, why are so many quick to cling to McGuire€s crash and subsequent death as the sole means to prove that the P-38 was some nasty stall monger? It could also be entirely possible that he lost power on one of his engines while the other was at a high power setting. Remember, single engine safety speed is a minimum of 120 mph IAS in the Lightning while operating the good engine at 44 inHgA or less. If the pilot exceeds 44 inHgA at 120 mph IAS he will not be able to maintain flight. I'm sure that there is a margin for error here since pilot's manuals tend to be conservative, but still it gives you a good idea about the limits of single engine operations.

We can speculate all day long about what happened to McGuire, but neither he nor his aircraft were available at the time or today to debrief and or inspect so that more light could be shed on why he crashed. The evidence at hand suggests pilot error not a problem inherent to the P-38.

Grey_Mouser, I'm only trying to further your statement, not disagree with it or insinuate that you're incorrect with you statement. I must admit that I've never read that the P-38 was unstable with external stores onboard. I'm sure that maneuvering was affected simply because the stall speed would be higher, but external stores didn't affect the center of gravity since they were hung on the center of gravity. Shooting off all the Lightning€s ammunition would cause a reward shift in the center of gravity, but I've read that the P-38 could safely fly with the center of gravity further aft than most other aircraft.

As far as the full rear fuel tank in the Mustang, I'm sure that pilots with proper training didn't have a problem with the Mustang since they knew its limitations with a full rear fuel tank. This doesn't mean that the Mustang wasn't adversely affected by a full rear fuel tank. When performing turns in a Mustang with a full fuselage tank, great care had to be taken due to the rearward center of gravity that the Mustang had with a full fuselage tank. The Mustang would tighten up the turn by itself so that the pilot actually had to push forward on the stick to maintain the same rate of turn. During a high speed pull out this unintentional tightening up of the turn could spell disaster for the Mustang. What I€ve just mentioned is duly noted in the pilot€s manual and there are scores of pilot€s comments to support both my statements and the pilot€s manual. This condition caused by the full rear full tank caught many inexperienced pilot unaware. Once experience in the Mustang was gained, it wasn't a problem.

Ensign eliminator, this again boils down to pilot experience. The Corsair did indeed have oleos that were too stiff. Inexperienced pilots would plop down on the runway, the stiff oleos would cause a precipitous bounce, the pilot would panic, cram on full power, and a spectacular crash usually followed. But again, properly trained pilots didn't have a problem with this. Witness British carrier operations, corsairs, and stiff oleos...

I haven't had enough recent reading on the stability issues that both the P-47D and P-51D had as a result of cutting down the fuselage and fitting the bubble canopy. They did in fact have a lot of stability issues until the dorsal fin was added. I sort of remember that it did help, but it wasn't a cure. I haven't had enough recent reading of studies and pilot comments about this condition to give a better answer, sorry.

Even though inexperienced or over zealous pilots and the above mentioned negative qualities of the different aircraft could spell disaster, I agree with your theme, experienced pilots could easily over come this problem.

bolillo_loco
01-12-2006, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Vrabac:
The saddest part of reading through all of this is that most of the participants are grown-ups.

This has to be the most accurate statement I've ever read in this forum. Unfortunately I'm one of the suspects guilty of spreading the insanity.

AKA_TAGERT
01-12-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
The saddest part of reading through all of this is that most of the participants are grown-ups. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

11 pages of nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The only fun part was when someone said it's all about Warcloud stats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You just made it 12 pages of nothing. Congrats! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

AKA_TAGERT
01-12-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Just because he's insane doesn't mean he's wrong. ROTFL! Couldnt have said it better myself.. but the little voices in my head thinks I could have.. well half of them do.. the other 4 think this is all to silly to coment on.

bolillo_loco
01-12-2006, 10:39 PM
Slickun, with your statement €œThat said, I was hoping like heck you could supply some sort of substantive number. You didn't. I'm assuming you don't know.€

Your assumptions are entirely correct, I don€t know. I haven€t access to a complete unit-by-unit break down of 9th Air Force P-38 strengths by sub-type.

With your statement €œWe are left to argue what "a few" means. You think, due to some photographs and pilot anecdotes, there were, what, a LOT?€

This is a very gray area and it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Your €œfew€ statement implies exactly what it says, hardly any served with the 9th Air Force, 12th Air Force, or 15th Air Force. I am not willing to provide the photographic evidence, partial list of unit losses, or pages of text that show how P-38Ls were as common as any other sub-type P-38 from October 1944 onward. The reason is simple. When I posted my evidence several months ago, I received e-mails, private messages, and one or two responses to my thread about all the copy written material that I just illegally posted. I quickly withdrew all the copy written material, ie all of it.

I also used the PTO P-38 €œmixed bag€ units as an example that during the latter part of 1944 until the spring of 1945, MTO, PTO, and ETO P-38 units flew mixed bags of P-38s. I would doubt that any P-38 unit exclusively used P-38Ls until the summer of 1945. Even then I would bank on the fact that there were still P-38Js flying along side of them. My point is that there is enough evidence at hand to prove that P-38Ls were used, I€m not suggesting a lot, but there were definitely more than a €œfew.€ In the MTO however I charge that the P-38L was in substantial use by late 1944 to very early 1945.

I do not have 80 books on P-38s. I have in the order of 40+ books; my best guess would be 45. I would hope that you agree that it takes considerable time to research any topic that contains even as few as three to five 300+ books. I further hope that you can appreciate that not only isn€t the P-38 a popular aircraft to write about, but that the MTO is even less popular. To prove this point I would suggest that you pop on over to Amazon.com and search 8th Air Force. Then search 12th Air Force and 15th Air Force. You will quickly find that hundreds of books are written on the 8th Air Force and very few books have been dedicated to the 12th and 15th Air Forces. It€s just not a popular topic, hence we cannot tear into it with the ease at which we could tackle the 8th Air Force. Complete records of the 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces are not readily available so that you can be directed to information regarding which exact type of P-38 served with them in regards to month, year, and percentage of the force.

I can only suggest that you buy the following books if you doubt what I say. Might I add that I don€t mind you doubting me. My hope is that you challenge what I write by purchasing the books I will list. I don€t have the time, resources, or money to provide you with answers to your questions because I am a poor full-time college student. I like to engage in these discussions because it helps me with argumentative writing, a frequent subject in college.

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

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

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

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

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

I could list about half a dozen more books like this, but I am certain that they are out of print. I am frequently asked for P-38 book suggestions and I check them frequently, hence there isn€t any point in listing six plus books that I know for a fact are unobtainable. There are also at least two dozen more books, but they are mainly €œP-38 general reference€ books and only provide a €œfew€ photographs and text evidence of P-38Ls in the 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Force P-38L photos and text.

The only source I have for P-38 numbers on hand in combat units doesn€t list the sub-type even though it does break down exact numbers by month per theater, SWP, MTO, ETO, CBI, etc.

I€m sorry I cannot be of more help, but due to a lack of time and money I cannot research it to a degree that suits both you and I. I'm a full-time college student and I mostly post here for the purpose of argumentative writing, common theme in my classes.

Hristo_
01-13-2006, 12:00 AM
I suggest we bring all P-38 threads under a common name - "P-38 bedtime stories" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
I suggest we bring all P-38 threads under a common name - "P-38 bedtime stories" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just because the amount detail causes your pretty little head to spin and thus puts you to sleep does not make it a bed time story.

carguy_
01-13-2006, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
This is a very gray area and it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Your €œfew€ statement implies exactly what it says, hardly any served with the 9th Air Force, 12th Air Force, or 15th Air Force. I am not willing to provide the photographic evidence, partial list of unit losses, or pages of text that show how P-38Ls were as common as any other sub-type P-38 from October 1944 onward. The reason is simple. When I posted my evidence several months ago, I received e-mails, private messages, and one or two responses to my thread about all the copy written material that I just illegally posted. I quickly withdrew all the copy written material, ie all of it.

Great!Maybe someone should finaly make a stickie named "what you can or can`t post about US aircraft". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

bolillo_loco
01-13-2006, 09:01 AM
I'm not sure what you mean car guy. The fact still remains that nobody may reproduce and distribute anything. Modern books even include "electronically" so it even covers the Internet. I posted a couple of photos as some evidence that there were P-38Ls and P-38J-25-LOs in the ETO and MTO. This was met with the usual, "a few photos means nothing" attitude. So I went through all my books and found all the photo graphic evidence, mission reports, and the like that gave any reference to P-38J-25-LOs up to P-38L-5-LOs serving in the ETO and MTO. This meant I had well over 60 photo bucket pictures that included text and photos. Many of the photo bucket pictures included multiple references to P-38Ls and multiple P-38Ls in the same picture. I quickly withdrew the pictures when several people advised me about problems they had when they posted so much copy written material. The bottom line is that nobody may post any copy written work in this forum unless they have the author and publisher's expressed written permission.

I did provide the €œdoubter€ with a couple of sources that he could legally purchase. I didn€t see any point in providing information to the 30+ books that I copied the material out of for several reasons: A dozen are rare out of print books, many are a waste of money (providing little proof to our discussion for the expense incurred), and most likely the €œdoubter€ will not buy even one of the cheapest books I provided information on. I did however include the books that have the most relevance to the €œdoubter€s€ questions.

Slickun
01-13-2006, 09:25 AM
bolillo_loco, thanks for the answer.


I'm sorry we don't have a better picture of the make-up of P-38 subtypes flying over Europe. It is a subject I'm interested in, as should anyone that loves Warbirds. I do wish we could get a handle, above and beyond "few", "more than a few" and "a lot". I KNOW the data is out there somewhere.

Changing the subject...

My Dad flew the photo-recon version of the Mustang quite a bit. The unit he was stationed with in Japan, just after the war, the unit he maintained his flying currency in, was a recon unit. It had several different subtypes of the Mustang in it, including a C version.

Anyway, Pop says that the photo equipment behind the cockpit made the recon versions always fly like they had a full fuselage tank. According to Dad, what that did was make you apply forward pressure in tight turns.

For example, a 3 G turn would quickly wrap into a 5 or 6 G turn if you didn't apply forward pressure. Bob weights etc helped with this, but according to Dad it was no more difficult getting used to than anything else about any other plane. You started a turn, if it began to get too tight you applied forward pressure.

Dad said that as you burned off fuel in the non-recon versions this effect got less and less, until you didn't have it. According to Pop, that point depended on how much fuel was in other parts of the plane, but around 1/2 tank burned ALWAYS ended the problem. Sometimes less.

I asked Pop about the Mustang's stability, or lack thereof, quite a few times. His response was that it was about like the other props he flew. he really was perplexed about questions of high stick pressures and lack of stability in the Mustang.

He did say that below 15,000 feet the P-47 got wobbly, but it was something a pilot learned to overcome. "Got used to it" was the term he used.

BTW. I distinctly remembering you claiming to have 80 some books on the P-38. I accepted you at your word, Skychimp called you out over it, remarking that he wasn't sure there were 80 books available on ANY plane that flew in WW2..

faustnik
01-13-2006, 10:58 AM
Well, I have a little info here.

As of December 1944 the Ninth AF had 3 fighter groups operating the P-38, the 367th, 370th & 474th (source: "To Win the Winter Sky", Parker).

That's a fair number of P-38s right there. Any replacement aircraft received at that time would be "L"s. Any remaining "J"s would probably be improved to "L" standards with boosted aelerons & dive brakes as well as the latest Allisons.

I've read a lot of late war LW accounts and the P-38 jabos were encountered by the LW until the end of the war.

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, I have a little info here.

As of December 1944 the Ninth AF had 3 fighter groups operating the P-38, the 367th, 370th & 474th (source: "To Win the Winter Sky", Parker).

That's a fair number of P-38s right there. Any replacement aircraft received at that time would be "L"s. Any remaining "J"s would probably be improved to "L" standards with boosted aelerons & dive brakes as well as the latest Allisons.

I've read a lot of late war LW accounts and the P-38 jabos were encountered by the LW until the end of the war. You anti-naysayer you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
01-13-2006, 11:36 AM
We know which groups were operating P-38's and when.

Exact numbers of L's mixed in, delivered, operating at 1725 is unknown, at least by us at this moment.

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
We know which groups were operating P-38's and when.

Exact numbers of L's mixed in, delivered, operating at 1725 is unknown, at least by us at this moment. Exact numbers are not needed to justify the addition of the P38L LATE. At least as far as resonalbe people are concerned (aka Oleg).

Heck, even if we did have exact numbers it would not be enough for the smack-tards, because than they would say you need to know what the pilots had for breakfast.. it never ends!

The FACT is there were sqds of them!

Heck, even if it was just 1 flying P38L at 66"MP, that is 1 more than the 109Z! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fordfan25
01-13-2006, 11:50 AM
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 Hristo_:
I suggest we bring all P-38 threads under a common name - "P-38 bedtime stories" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just because the amount detail causes your pretty little head to spin and thus puts you to sleep does not make it a bed time story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


lol u saved me the trouble TAG. well i think im off to listen in on blue teams comm's. maby that will put me to sleep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Slickun
01-13-2006, 11:52 AM
This hasn't got anything to do with including it in the game. At least from my chair. I simply am curious about how prevalent they were.

There very well may have been squads of them, even though what bolillo_loco and I think is that there were mixed squadrons of J's and L's, as L's replaced the J models.

Everything (beyond the fact that there were L's, and they didn't need 150 octane for 1725)is just conjecture right now.

I have a question for aka tagert. Did you know the L didn't need 150 octane for 1725 hp before your first post on this thread?

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
This hasn't got anything to do with including it in the game. At least from my chair. I simply am curious about how prevalent they were. Ever think of staring your own thread than with a title that corsponds to your special interest?


Originally posted by Slickun:
There very well may have been squads of them, even though what bolillo_loco and I think is that there were mixed squadrons of J's and L's, as L's replaced the J models. And J's upgraded to L standards, where one upgrade is to replace the engine after so many hours with a new one.


Originally posted by Slickun:
Everything (beyond the fact that there were L's, and they didn't need 150 octane for 1725) is just conjecture right now. Disagree 100%


Originally posted by Slickun:
I have a question for aka tagert. Did you know the L didn't need 150 octane for 1725 hp before your first post on this thread? Yes, as noted many pages back.

Slickun
01-13-2006, 12:23 PM
aka_tagert, then lay some numbers on us, Buddy. How many L's were there serving in the ETO/MTO? Say, VE day?

Do we know the date of the first L model serving, and it's service number?

Do we know how many J's became L's with new engines?

Which Squadrons were 100% L models?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I'd really like to. That's all. If you do, or know where to look, I'll do it myself.

Don't mistake me for one of the naysayers, as you put it. I'm on board with the idea of L models over Europe, with 1725 available, have been for awhile, after initial skepticism, as I've posted on this thread. Once we cracked the 150 octane problem, I was OK with it.

I am curious. We can't seem to get beyond words like few, more than a few etc. If you don't have these answers, I may start a separate thread. If Kahuna, loco, and tagert can't answer, it may be a waste of time.

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
aka_tagert, then lay some numbers on us, Buddy. How many L's were there serving in the ETO/MTO? Say, VE day?

Do we know the date of the first L model serving, and it's service number?

Do we know how many J's became L's with new engines?

Which Squadrons were 100% L models?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I'd really like to. That's all. If you do, or know where to look, I'll do it myself.

Don't mistake me for one of the naysayers, as you put it. I'm on board with the idea of L models over Europe, with 1725 available, have been for awhile, after initial skepticism, as I've posted on this thread. Once we cracked the 150 octane problem, I was OK with it.

I am curious. We can't seem to get beyond words like few, more than a few etc. If you don't have these answers, I may start a separate thread. If Kahuna, loco, and tagert can't answer, it may be a waste of time. Are you really this thick? Or trying to be thick to promote your own topic? I think I made it pretty clear in my last post that the exact numbers and what they had for breakfast is not important to reasonable people. Therefore has nothing to do with the topic at hand, now if you want to go start your own thread about the count of plane types in the ETO, PTO, MTO by all means please do! In that it does not mater if it was 10, 100, 1000, 10,000! The fact remains that multiple squadrons ran the P38 in the ETO all the way to the end of the war and were rated at 66"MP. That is good enough to justify the addition of the P38L LATE for reasonable people and Oleg, only smack-tards are having a problem with that concept. As for the count, like I said, I don€t care, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. YOU SAVVY?

Slickun
01-13-2006, 02:53 PM
aka_tagert: Your statement:

"That is good enough to justify the addition of the P38L LATE for reasonable people and Oleg, only smack-tards are having a problem with that concept."

Was mirrored by mine one post earlier:

"I'm on board with the idea of L models over Europe, with 1725 available, have been for awhile, after initial skepticism, as I've posted on this thread"

And on a couple of pages back:

"We have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that P-38's were operated at more than 60". I believe it to be true, just as I believe that there were a few P-47D's operating at 70" or more, illegally. All these pilots aren't lying. Why would they?

But it would be nice to see some documentation so we can find out how prevalent it was.

Not for a coop.

Not to win an argument.

Just so we KNOW."


I guess you missed these.

Yeah, I'm thick. I'm getting the idea, finally, you don't know how many P-38L's flew in the ETO or MTO. It's sinking in. So is the fact you are unpleasant to try to visit with.

Ramjager
01-13-2006, 03:08 PM
Quote and "smack tard" phrase enroute. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Slickun
01-13-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
I have a question for aka tagert. Did you know the L didn't need 150 octane for 1725 hp before your first post on this thread?

aka_tagert's answer:
Yes, as noted many pages back.




So, what part of

"Modification kits are made up and are at present in the States. The changes to be made for the use of this fuel are as follows"

Did you not *get*? We know they use 150 fuel, thus the changes were made, thus 70 to 75"MP was obtaiable.

What you *think* I *think* does not mater, what I *said* does, and all I said was the P38 could obtain 75"MP with 150 oct fuel.

Well, your right, it does not mater what I or you think.. But clearly Oleg knows something that shows he 38 was cleard for 150 grade fuel, and that is good enough for me.

Open up your readme file for the version where the LATE was added and note that the part about the 1720hp P38s. If not the fuel.. and no change in the engines.. then what? Fw190 pixi dust?

Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. So much so that even Oleg, who is hard to convice, saw enough of it to make the P38L LATE which has the same engines as the P38L, the only difference is the 150 fuel allowed those same engines to produce more horse power.


Disagree 100%! Show me your proof of a mechanical change to the P38L to P38L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp, none, nada, zip! Thus, Ill ask you one more time.. if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Disagree 100%! Show me your proof of a mechanical change to the P38L to P38L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp, none, nada, zip! Thus, Ill ask you one more time.. if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Yes they are.. wrt the changes in the L to L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp.. if not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Roger, because at that time they were NOT using 150 grade fuel. Thus your answer to my question (after 3 times asking) is to admit, you got NOTHING to support your claime that there is a mecanical difference in the L and L LATE.. Oh alison expert. Thus, that leaves us with 150 fuel.

Nope, in that most of us are reasonable people that realize, unlike you, that the 1600hp to 1720hp was due to the fuel, in light of the FACT that nothing changed in the Allison engine between the L and L LATE.

Not true! You came in with a weak argument that the engines changed.. they did not, thus, if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

You missing the point, CUJO claims that the extra power was NOT due to the 150 fuel, thus not need to make the changes to run 150 fuel, in that it was never done as far as CUJO is concerned. But, we know that is was done, Oleg knows that it was done, eveyone but CUJO and his cheer leaders what to admit it.

No, sorry, once again you misunderstood what is being said. Early on, when the L engines came on line they were NOT using 150 grade fuel, thus, the 1600hp rating you mentioned. Later there were cleared for 1720hp due to the upgrade in fuel from 130 to 150 oct. SAVVY?

No, simply go back and take note that the topic is about the L LATE, not the J. Than note we have been talking about the L the whole time.. you came in and said the 1600hp to 1720hp was not due to 150 fuel, at which point I asked if not the 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust? In that there were no changes to the engines. To which you replied I should go read up on the Alison engine, at which point I said you should in that there were no mech changes to the engines from the L to L LATE.

Poor naysayer.. Son, you got nothing! The Luftwiner might buy into the Fw190 pixie dust as valid reasons for 1600hp to 1720hp, but not the rest. So, again, if not 150 grade fuel than what?


Slickun again:
All the above were made by aka_tagert in the first three pages of this thread. It is obvious that he did NOT, in fact, know that the P-38L didn't need 150 grade fuel to operate at 1725 hp.

How 'bout that rope-a-dope?

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
But it would be nice to see some documentation so we can find out how prevalent it was.

Not for a coop.

Not to win an argument.

Just so we KNOW."

I guess you missed these. Nope, saw each and everyone, which is why I urged you to start your own thread on the topic, in that it has nothing to do with this one.


Originally posted by Slickun:
Yeah, I'm thick. I'm getting the idea, finally, you don't know how many P-38L's flew in the ETO or MTO. It's sinking in. Agreed 100%! Not only do I NOT have the exact numbers for you, I dont know what they had for breakfast either.. Not that I couldnt get them for you, the real reason is I dont care about the exact numbers in that they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.. Now if you start a thread titled "The Exact Number of P38s in the ETO day to day" I promise I will not go in there and start asking if they used 66"MP or 70"MP.


Originally posted by Slickun:
So is the fact you are unpleasant to try to visit with. Gee, I feel so empty inside, some namless, faceless person I have never met is made because I told him I dont care about the exact count of P38s in the ETO or what the pilots had for breakfast.. How will I ever get though the day now knowing your upset with me.. What shall I do?

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Originally posted by Slickun:
I have a question for aka tagert. Did you know the L didn't need 150 octane for 1725 hp before your first post on this thread?

aka_tagert's answer:
Yes, as noted many pages back.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, what part of

"Modification kits are made up and are at present in the States. The changes to be made for the use of this fuel are as follows"

Did you not *get*? We know they use 150 fuel, thus the changes were made, thus 70 to 75"MP was obtaiable.

What you *think* I *think* does not mater, what I *said* does, and all I said was the P38 could obtain 75"MP with 150 oct fuel.

Well, your right, it does not mater what I or you think.. But clearly Oleg knows something that shows he 38 was cleard for 150 grade fuel, and that is good enough for me.

Open up your readme file for the version where the LATE was added and note that the part about the 1720hp P38s. If not the fuel.. and no change in the engines.. then what? Fw190 pixi dust?

Not ture, there is plenty of proof.. So much so that even Oleg, who is hard to convice, saw enough of it to make the P38L LATE which has the same engines as the P38L, the only difference is the 150 fuel allowed those same engines to produce more horse power.


Disagree 100%! Show me your proof of a mechanical change to the P38L to P38L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp, none, nada, zip! Thus, Ill ask you one more time.. if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Disagree 100%! Show me your proof of a mechanical change to the P38L to P38L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp, none, nada, zip! Thus, Ill ask you one more time.. if not 150 fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Yes they are.. wrt the changes in the L to L LATE that allowed it to go from 1600hp to 1720hp.. if not 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

Roger, because at that time they were NOT using 150 grade fuel. Thus your answer to my question (after 3 times asking) is to admit, you got NOTHING to support your claime that there is a mecanical difference in the L and L LATE.. Oh alison expert. Thus, that leaves us with 150 fuel.

Nope, in that most of us are reasonable people that realize, unlike you, that the 1600hp to 1720hp was due to the fuel, in light of the FACT that nothing changed in the Allison engine between the L and L LATE.

Not true! You came in with a weak argument that the engines changed.. they did not, thus, if not 150 grade fuel than what? Fw190 pixie dust?

You missing the point, CUJO claims that the extra power was NOT due to the 150 fuel, thus not need to make the changes to run 150 fuel, in that it was never done as far as CUJO is concerned. But, we know that is was done, Oleg knows that it was done, eveyone but CUJO and his cheer leaders what to admit it.

No, sorry, once again you misunderstood what is being said. Early on, when the L engines came on line they were NOT using 150 grade fuel, thus, the 1600hp rating you mentioned. Later there were cleared for 1720hp due to the upgrade in fuel from 130 to 150 oct. SAVVY?

No, simply go back and take note that the topic is about the L LATE, not the J. Than note we have been talking about the L the whole time.. you came in and said the 1600hp to 1720hp was not due to 150 fuel, at which point I asked if not the 150 fuel, than what? Fw190 pixie dust? In that there were no changes to the engines. To which you replied I should go read up on the Alison engine, at which point I said you should in that there were no mech changes to the engines from the L to L LATE.

Poor naysayer.. Son, you got nothing! The Luftwiner might buy into the Fw190 pixie dust as valid reasons for 1600hp to 1720hp, but not the rest. So, again, if not 150 grade fuel than what?


Slickun again:
All the above were made by aka_tagert in the first three pages of this thread. It is obvious that he did NOT, in fact, know that the P-38L didn't need 150 grade fuel to operate at 1725 hp.

How 'bout that rope-a-dope? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You missed one, the one where I said I was just pulling his leg.. keep lookin, you will find it.

carguy_
01-13-2006, 03:39 PM
http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/crying.gif

Slickun
01-13-2006, 03:42 PM
Spin this any way you want.

Can we get along now?

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Spin this any way you want. Ah, good, you found where I said I was pullin his leg! If calling it a spin makes your spinning feel better, by all means spin away!


Originally posted by Slickun:
Can we get along now? Sure, dont ask me about exact numbers and I wont ask you about 70"MP