PDA

View Full Version : and yet another topic on the lightning...



Pages : [1] 2

Luftcaca
12-09-2004, 08:26 AM
just wanna know what you think of the way the P-38 is currently modelled...DM's and FM's of course...and yes she looks gorgeous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I flew it much lately and found out quite a few things about which I'd like to discuss with you guys...

1) I thought the P-38 was a stable gun platfomr?? I even read once that it was the MOST stable gun plateform of all WWII fighters...now it shakes like hell when I fire...even if I only fire with the .50...

2)I thought the P-38 was kinda maneuverable at low speed? right now the P-38 really feels like a brick, at most speeds...could someone shed some light over that?

3) Gun jammings: every mission I have at least one gun which jams due to the flak or something...it happens VERY often...if you compare it to other planes...

3) Controls damage: like the guns jamming, I VERY often have controls damage, especially the rudder and/or the elevators...I think this should be tuned down a bit...seriously...

so what do you guys think of the Lightning overall?

Luftcaca
12-09-2004, 08:26 AM
just wanna know what you think of the way the P-38 is currently modelled...DM's and FM's of course...and yes she looks gorgeous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I flew it much lately and found out quite a few things about which I'd like to discuss with you guys...

1) I thought the P-38 was a stable gun platfomr?? I even read once that it was the MOST stable gun plateform of all WWII fighters...now it shakes like hell when I fire...even if I only fire with the .50...

2)I thought the P-38 was kinda maneuverable at low speed? right now the P-38 really feels like a brick, at most speeds...could someone shed some light over that?

3) Gun jammings: every mission I have at least one gun which jams due to the flak or something...it happens VERY often...if you compare it to other planes...

3) Controls damage: like the guns jamming, I VERY often have controls damage, especially the rudder and/or the elevators...I think this should be tuned down a bit...seriously...

so what do you guys think of the Lightning overall?

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 10:33 AM
It certainly doesnt live up to its rep

It dissapoints, actually

Many ppl fly it in FB and say they do well, but I havent seen too many really successful 38 pilots in a DF

the FM is a joke, the fake 109Z is probably more like the real 38 than the one in FB...at least the stability and very little torque in the 109Z should be applied toi the 38

The gun shake is ridicolous as well, the La7 and some Yaks with asymetric guns, single engine and a lot less weight shake less than the 38

Curiously, Ive noticed the B 25 J has a fair bit of shake when firing its 5 foward guns...can that be right? dont think so...Ive seen the side package guns from a Mitchell firing on the ground...the 50s themselves would shake about in thier mountings, but I cant see a head shake for a B 25 pilot...silliness

Back to the 38....it seems hard to get any sort of turn in this without stalling and going into a spin

I also wonder why the fire extinguishers were taken out of the 38, they DID have them

The compressability issue really bugs me, too...the 38 control surfaces totally lock up at by 700 kph...yet the P 47 can dive over 1000kph, even into low alt, and loses very, very little control authority..in fact, EVERY other type in FB does not show any effects of compressability....sure, a Zero will freeze up at high speed, but thats to do with rolling, and the force needed to affect those huge ailerons at higher speeds....otherwise, the zero will break up before it even reaches compressability speeds

Is it because the P 38 was one of the first ac to experience compressability?...The P 38 is now infamous for it, due to the event being discovered by it, way back...almost any literature concerning the P 38 has something to say about comp.

Is it this infamy that made 1C decide to cripple the 38, while other type get off scott free?

ZG77_Nagual
12-09-2004, 11:01 AM
I think she got a little better since pf/and or the patch. Particularly at the top of a stall. But I think (*and I have nothing but anecdotes to back this up - so I ain't complainin) her low speed turn is weak. What I THINK the lightning should have is a very stable and persistent sustained low speed turn - hence the famous 'cloverleaf' maneuver - in which the 38 could slide in and out of an almost square turn - gaining angles on opponents such as the 109 in slowish turn engagements. The lighting does currently outturn the 190.

As for compressibility. This was a problem for the 38 - right now there is a fairly narrow area where you can turn this bird. Personally I think that should be extended a bit in both direction - though not too far.

As a bnz fighter the p38 is excellent - in the J you need trim and space to recover from a dive - but you are not losing much speed and can carry that right into the vertical.

WOLFMondo
12-09-2004, 11:16 AM
I really like the P38, I enjoy flying it, I get a sense of achivement when I do well in it. Online the P38J can take on the best of the '43 bunch.

I agree about the trim, Its very handy when going a bit quick.

Capt.LoneRanger
12-09-2004, 11:57 AM
The FM is still of, because the sim is not made for the prop-config of the P38. This is probably especially during the slow speed movement.

I fly P38 sometimes but B&Z is not really my strongest maneuver http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-09-2004, 11:58 AM
P38 is a nice Plane it can hold it's own well on a 1on1 situation vs most fightes.

go in with a tad energy advantage and you'll see, it is doable.
It turns nice enough to stay with FW's, only problem is roll, but you can aim (lead) if you approch your target (which can't be done in a FW for example..), alsow try to suprise your enemy.

My favourite victims are FW190A and FW190D i don't like BF109K (because of the good turnrate and heavy firepower).

Only disadvantage i noticed with PF is the dive-brakes, they need longer to respond now they were much more usefull in AEP.

and as for the gun-jamming well the AI tends to shot directly to the pilot (center of the plane) and because the guns of the lightning are not behind the engine as on single-engined fighters they and the pilot it self are the only things to hit.

After all i say the P38J is my ride of choise when i need to fly allied A/C's.(43 Planeset perfered by me anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Luftcaca
12-09-2004, 03:27 PM
interesting comments...

no one noticed how easily the controls are damaged?

VF-29_Sandman
12-09-2004, 07:38 PM
never heard of fire extingishers ever being on any model of lightnings. dm's tho, it does seem a bit on the side of a6m2 in taking any sort of damage. but in cfs2, the stabilizer was its weakest link...anywhere else, it was a flying tank that took a serious beating. a spit ball could knock out the elevators in pf it seems like.

shooting wise...it has to be the most unstable gun platform around in all but the highest speed and in a dive. deflections are for the most part, very inaccurate in comparison to other usaf birds--jug being 1; very accurate in a turn shooting situation, and practically nowhere near the amount of head shake with 8x50 cal. shells also seem to take twice as long to get there; especially the 20mm.

being a 10 ton fighter with the guns centerline mounted, it shouldnt shake anywhere like this. it has a tendency to yaw to 1 side or the other. u wont get this with wing guns unless a complete bank of guns gets damaged.

Stiglr
12-09-2004, 07:47 PM
I dunno, I've found P-38s to be merely targets in all the sims I've flown: Warbirds, here and in Target:Rabaul.

In Warbirds, they had an early version of the -38L that could roll like an F-16, so it was quite ueber for a while. But eventually it got changed.

I know the plane has a great reputation and the leading aces in the Pacific flew 'em, but I have always felt they were just average at best. Fast, but the early versions had compressibility problems that limited the speed you could use. They could climb, but not that much better than the enemy's best climbers. They could turn in some regimens, but not outturn the enemy's best turners.

I always suspected that the twin engine thing was basically a mental insurance policy for her pilots. I guess if my life were on the line, I might agree with that thinking, but as a combat fighter, there just weren't many successful twin engine fighters, and for a reason.

The best thing about 'em seems to be all the guns right in the nose.

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 08:11 PM
Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The gun shake is ridicolous as well, the La7 and some Yaks with asymetric guns, single engine and a lot less weight shake less than the 38 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P~38 guns not mounted on heavy engine, and airplanes are not rigid objects. Pay Attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This discussion came up long ago, and we exposed P~38 as not having excessive gunshake.

La~7 has worse gunshake than P~38, Yak about the same as P~38. Lighter Yak also has much less firepower, but we were not paying attention to that.

Pay Attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
12-09-2004, 08:52 PM
I think the P-38 has been improved significantly since the release of PF. Its compressibility problems seem to have been reduced somewhat which prevent boom and zoom tactics from becoming fatal. I think its high speed turn radius may have also been given a boost. Operating both engines separately is key. Firepower is good, it takes some practice to hit with the cannon but once you have that down its really dangerous.

Against German AC I don't think the P-38 has too many advantages and this was played out in real life. German pilot accounts that I've read describe the P-38 as easy to stalk and attack or avoid as the situation dictated because of its size and distinct shape. The P-38 wasn't fast enough or maneuverable enough to fight with the german fighters. They were effective as escorts where the objective was to scatter the German AC so that their attacks on the bombers would be less concentrated but on fighter patrols they didn't do as well as I used to think. A lot of the P-38's work in Europe and Italy was in the ground attack role.

In the Pacific, the P-38s strengths start to show. Its long range, twin engines, greater armament and superior high altitude performance made it a deadly weapon for use against Japanese fighters. Although far more manueverable, Japanese fighters could not stay in sustained climbs with P-38s and the P-38 could fly at much higher altitudes. This gave it a significant advantage as its pilot could wait for the most opportune time to attack. This was very important as many kills during WWII were made in bounces and being the one with the speed, altitude, and initiative meant that the P-38s were more likely to be the ones doing the bouncing.

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 09:08 PM
A great post BigBear. I wish I could compose like that--level headed.

BigBear:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They were effective as escorts where the objective was to scatter the German AC so that their attacks on the bombers would be less concentrated but on fighter patrols they didn't do as well as I used to think. A lot of the P-38's work in Europe and Italy was in the ground attack role. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wish I still had the internet link, but there was a ~looong~ winded pilot account, many many pages, by an experienced high time Med P~38 pilot--the kind of pilot we never hear about. He only got one kill against Ju~52 taking off, but still made squadron commander because of his service. Mostly, their success came from scattering German fighters away from their objective whether it be ground attack Fw or intercept Bf. Spent much time shooting up ground targets in Italy.

Interesting:: The pilot told of German 100mm flak going up to his altitude at 35000 feet. And, he could hear the explosions over his engines. He also wrote about Extreme cold in P~38 cockpit.

Some pilots could use the differential twin engine thrust to great effect against German fighters--thinking of Fw here--but I imagine the majority of pilots did not (not sure of course). In Pacific, just fly fast and that's all you need to do against Zeroes.

Still, P~38 was the Ussian equivalent of Russian MiG~3, and of course only Lockheed could create the most exotic 1930s high altitude interceptor. Shame about the Dev time though.

GR142_Astro
12-10-2004, 12:57 AM
Luftcaca, you are not the only one who has noticed these points. The P38 is like the Jug from 1.0. Horrible representation of the real aircraft. Not much more than a target at the momement. Hopefully we can get it straightened out in what, 5 or 6 patches from now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gunshake was never "resolved". Just swept away by those who don't want it fixed.

Pay attention to that.

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

GR142_Astro
12-10-2004, 01:06 AM
You are recanting the same thin argument about gunshake that made no sense before, and it still doesn't. Not stable because the guns aren't attached directly to an engine? Please.

This is a heavy aircraft with an inherently stable construction. Look at the center section. It's basically a massive H, held in place by the engines. Should be very stable as its reputation has been recorded.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p38-38.jpg

Fehler
12-10-2004, 02:36 AM
Oh my.. This may be a first for me, I hope I am not getting ill.

I totally agree with Pipper. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

EVERYTHING I have ever read has said that the P-38 was a rock solid gun platform. It had it's strengths and it's weaknesses like any other fighter, and in the Pacific it was an excellent fighter.

In Europe, that was really another story. I read an interview with Gunther Rall once where he was finally coaxed into giving his real opinion on the plane and he said, "We sent the inexperienced fighter pilots in when we saw a P-38. They were really no trouble for the 109."

I can only assume that he was talking about turn and fighting from an advantage against them, of course.

The P-38 in this game needs a large alt advantage to be effective, but when you dive in on someone, the exaggerated compression kills the B&Z attack. (Much like the exaggerated elevator problems in the 109) The problem is that when forced to turn fight, the thing really feels like a brick at slower speeds - also not when I have ever read.

The main problems with this bird IRL were that they were a maintenance nightmare. They were tricky to fly, but gave a pilot good chance to survive. They turned well for a large heavy plane, but what exactly does "Turned well" mean... compared to what?

Those are all snippets from pilot accounts, and as such you can read them for what they are, or read into them in some cases.

I think the P-38 we have in the game matches speed, climb, roll, and turn tables pretty closely. Less tangable things like compression, energy retention, torque, and DM are somewhat suspect after reading pilot accounts.

Personally it is my favorite allied plane to fly because it is hard to be good in it just like my 190.

I admit that I havent flown it since PF because I have been really trying to learn the art of T&B in the Japanese planes.

Did they fix the rediculas wheel bounce on landing?

ElmerFuddGantry
12-10-2004, 03:18 AM
How does the P38 go in the competion games, where all icons are off? It has a distinctive recognisable look that certainly helps the enemy determine if it is friend or foe faster. After all, most pilots of aircraft shot down, never saw what got them till it was too late.

KGr.HH-Gotcha
12-10-2004, 04:55 AM
the same as the bf110 or the p47. very easy to distuingish but nonetheless good firepower and it's **** fast on the deck while carrying all the payload.
You guys should stop to compare the plane when on pure dogfight maps where historical accuracy and the situations are next to ridiculous since when does somebody recall battles taking place including 3 series of 109s , 2 series of 190s, the whole series of american late war planes mixing with all british and them all going for a dogfight....

pacettid
12-10-2004, 05:32 AM
I seldom post in these FM threads, as they have been "done to death", but I enjoy flying both models of the P-38 and I normally do pretty well in both during on-line play, so I will give you my 2 cents worth:

- Rule Nr. 1 - When flying either model in PF, always try to keep speed at 300 mph or above. If you stick to this rule (P-38 ace Thomas McGuire's rule, btw), you almost never have to worry about any plane, except the Ki-84, getting on your six and doing any great damage. I never fly anything but historic plane sets on our PF server, so cannot comment on non-historic match-ups, or ETO issues.
- Rule Nr. 2 - When flying the P-38J do not allow airspeed above 400 mph in a dive, or you will suffer compression. The steeper the dive angle, the more pronounced the effect. When diving on a target, keep airspeed below 400 until you level out, then cram on the throttle. Once you are level and are approaching the target, speed is good.
- Rule Nr. 3 - Patience, Patience, Patience. Most guys who complain about the P-38 on our server do not have the patience to use proper energy tactics. I frequently see them trying to TnB with A6M5's or Tony's, and they pay the price accordingly. Never turn more than 90 degrees with an adversary; Rule Nr. 1 and 4 also apply.
- Rule Nr. 4 - Use team work. I have never seen a "lone wolf" last very long on our server, no matter what plane he flies. It works in combat, and PF+FB+AEP is no different.
- Rule Nr. 5 - Altitude is your best friend. Altitude is potential energy (see Rule Nr. 1), and it also gives you plenty of options. Most of the guys who seem to get killed alot in the P-38 are low, and slow too, for that matter.
- Rule Nr. 6 - Practice, Practice, Practice. If you want to be good at a particular plane you have to fly it until you know it like "the back of your hand"; the P-38 is no exception. I see lot's of guys on our server change planes every time they respawn. Combat pilots know their mounts well; you must too. As for the gunnery issues, use Quick mission Builder to practice head-on and slashing attacks on Zekes and other TnB planes until you can do them in your sleep. If you put your bullet stream in front of one of these planes and he flys into it, he is going to be in big trouble.

The FMs in the sim "...are what they are". All I can tell you is IF I use the rules above, I almost always come back from every mission I fly.

VF-29_Sandman
12-10-2004, 06:42 AM
out of all the planes in the sim, the 190 and the p-38 are practically 'reserved' for the sniper's. shooting in either of these crates from the get-go is almost an artform, especially in the deflection area. as pace said...speed is life in a 38. as soon as a bandit turns after a botched z/b, he'll never catch a 38 in a climb or straights when the devil comes screamin in at 400 mph. if the bogey doesnt see the twin engined death machine comin, those 4x50 and 20mm all in the nose hittin all at once will severely hurt even a corsair if the pilot has the eagle eye in shooting in the lightning.

i've noticed 1 thing: it will turn with some planes....and u'll only get at most(if lucky) 2 turns. over that number is pure suicide without a wingman. those that do wing in 38's, have the art down pat as this plane will not easily forgive any mistakes. never fly under 10,000 feet if all possible; if u do, u'll never have any chance of gettin enough speed to shake anything.

another note: the guns are extremely accurate and must be aimed with precision. wing guns are almost like a shotgun. easier to hit with a bit of spray at a moving target than takin out the same target with something like a 30-06. in qmb, i've seen pretty concentrated hits from as far as 600 meters...and for a gun, that's quite a long shot to pull off at a moving target.

Zen--
12-10-2004, 07:52 AM
Nice post Don/Pacettid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-10-2004, 08:37 AM
I find the 38 and excellent plane to shoot from. I think the gun-shake perception comes from what I call 'lateral inertia' - responsive rudders but a tendancy to keep going once in motion. Most of us use the rudder to fine tune our aim - the 38 tends to sort of swing back and forth in response to this - hence the perception of shake. Re Gunther Rall's comments - I believe it was he who was nearly shot down by a p38 while flying a dora - the 38 ran out of fuel and had to disengage.
My own theory is the P38 was a complex A/C - widely diverging accounts of it's effectiveness can be explained by pilot skill and familiarity.

Here is an extremely long and exhaustively informative thread on the P-38
P38 Thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

Luftcaca
12-10-2004, 09:15 AM
In Europe, that was really another story. I read an interview with Gunther Rall once where he was finally coaxed into giving his real opinion on the plane and he said, "We sent the inexperienced fighter pilots in when we saw a P-38. They were really no trouble for the 109."

yep pretty true !

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 09:44 AM
Nagual:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the gun-shake perception comes from what I call 'lateral inertia' - responsive rudders but a tendancy to keep going once in motion. Most of us use the rudder to fine tune our aim - the 38 tends to sort of swing back and forth in response to this - hence the perception of shake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could be. Just trim steady then go hands off and test guns. Less gunshake than La~7 and about the same as Yak with much less mass and firepower (thread is still being Quiet about this though).

VF-29_Sandman
12-10-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Nagual:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the gun-shake perception comes from what I call 'lateral inertia' - responsive rudders but a tendancy to keep going once in motion. Most of us use the rudder to fine tune our aim - the 38 tends to sort of swing back and forth in response to this - hence the perception of shake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could be. Just trim steady then go hands off and test guns. Less gunshake than La~7 and about the same as Yak with much less mass and firepower (thread is still being Quiet about this though). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok obi-wan...define trim steady for us 'padawan's' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 10:26 AM
Trim *should* be in the Manual (never looked for it actually).

I recommend mapping trim to mousewheel, or joystick rotary if you have fancy stick.

ZG77_Nagual
12-10-2004, 10:39 AM
Basically you just need to be flying level to test this - without control inputs. The 38 has some of the most effective guns in the sim - and one of the best gunsights for deflection shooting (navy planes are better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but it is weak on roll and turn - hence alot of rudder gets used.

Daiichidoku
12-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Ok, LEXXX, having the guins on the engine mass, will reduce shake, I agree

But dont say the Yak, at least the Yak 3P, fo rexample doesnt have the firepower of the 38...what does the 3P have?/ 3x 20mm? thats pretty robust, alright...probably as much or more than 4x 50 1x20mm of the 38

Fact is, the P 38 was designed to intercept Bombers at high alt, off USAs coasts....it was made as a Gun platform to be very stable while firing, particularly because it was intended, and indeed was originally ftted with 37mm cannon

IMO, there should be far less head shake when shooting in this bird (As an aside, I will reiterate what I posted before, that when firing the 5x50 in the B 25 J, there is a fair ammount of headshake...in a B 25?!?...thats just plain silly...Ive seen the sidepak guns on a B 25 fire, and the GUNS shake like the dickens, but how can the pilot of such a large and heavy craft have headshake from 5x 50s?)

Besides the headshake, the compressability is way off, and the fact that it is the ONLY type in FB that suffers it is BS...can anyone else give an example of compressability in ANY other FB type?...and zeros dont count, the loss of ailerons is due to thier huge area, its not comp.

the Jug IRL had comp...but in FB one cabn dive it well over 1000kph with almost no loss of control...other types will break up before getting any comp. effects...why is this? did 1C/Oleg arbitrarily addd this effect only to the 38 becuz of its notority in the regards?

I will check my sources later, but AFAIR, fire extinguishers were added to the 38 Gs, and stayed throughtout its life

Funny how the 38 was known for the intercoolers being too efficient at alt, and freezing lower extremities of its pilots, yet at high alt you can get overheat in it in FB

Also, can anyone tell just why every other twin in FB has very little torque effects, but the 38 is rife with it?

The Me 262, He 111, B 25, Beaufighter, Me 110, A 20, and 109Z seems to be as torque-free as the limited FB engine can get them...but not the P 38

The P 38 was a great ship, but not perfect. Everyone knows that...in fact, it had some serious issues that took time to retify, or even were never overcome

But the sad fact is that in FB it really is hobbled

Took a long time fo r1C to get the P 47 right, it was so sad before...I hope it doesnt take as long to get the 38 right, if it ever happens

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 11:12 AM
Daiich turn pilot headshake off and then test gunshake. You will find little gunshake. You find headshake option in Difficulty menu when you click RUN to start mission in QMB or FMB (note if you use keyboard shortcut you bypass the Diffficulty Menu and dump directly into loading the mission).

And Daiich, stop trying to turn with the Zeroes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VF-2_John_Banks
12-10-2004, 11:48 AM
Pacettid, what is the name of your server and when is it usually online?

pacettid
12-10-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
Pacettid, what is the name of your server and when is it usually online? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our server is called "The Fallen Angels' Server". We are on Hyperlobby 24/7 and always enjoy welcoming new players. I am the mission builder for the server (FA_Cheech), and I try to come as close as possible to historical missions and plane sets. About the only compromises I make are based on playability issues, and map limitations.

Hope to see you soon.

geetarman
12-10-2004, 02:10 PM
I used to fly it all the time in AEP. I do sense that something changed during PF and the follow-on patches. To me, it doesn't fly as well or like it used to anymore. Shame.

In RL it ruled in the Pacific for all the reasons stated prior. It could rule in a hx. PF server now as long as the late Jap. planes aren't there. Just stay fast and engage at will.

The ETO situation is a bit odd to me. Yes, traditionally, it had problems with the German fighters, because they were faster than the Jap. planes at alt. This removed a big advantage the 38 had in the Pacific. In the game, you see this.

The problem I see is that is it also pretty clear that at lower alts. the RL 38 did very well against the 109's and 190's because of its ability to turn tighter than them and not have to deal with torque. This is not really represented in the game as it stands now. A 38 should easily stay with a mid to late 109 or 190 at tree top levels (p.s. where most IL2 df's take place). A number of US pilots felt that the 38 was a superior dog fighter vs. the other later USAAC planes at low altitude.

We do not see this. Oh well. I've moved on.

Philipscdrw
12-10-2004, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacettid:
I seldom post in these FM threads, as they have been "done to death", but I enjoy flying both models of the P-38 and I normally do pretty well in both during on-line play, so I will give you my 2 cents worth:

- Rule Nr. 1 - When flying either model in PF, always try to keep speed at 300 mph or above. If you stick to this rule (P-38 ace Thomas McGuire's rule, btw), you almost never have to worry about any plane, except the Ki-84, getting on your six and doing any great damage. I never fly anything but historic plane sets on our PF server, so cannot comment on non-historic match-ups, or ETO issues.
- Rule Nr. 2 - When flying the P-38J do not allow airspeed above 400 mph in a dive, or you will suffer compression. The steeper the dive angle, the more pronounced the effect. When diving on a target, keep airspeed below 400 until you level out, then cram on the throttle. Once you are level and are approaching the target, speed is good.
- Rule Nr. 3 - Patience, Patience, Patience. Most guys who complain about the P-38 on our server do not have the patience to use proper energy tactics. I frequently see them trying to TnB with A6M5's or Tony's, and they pay the price accordingly. Never turn more than 90 degrees with an adversary; Rule Nr. 1 and 4 also apply.
- Rule Nr. 4 - Use team work. I have never seen a "lone wolf" last very long on our server, no matter what plane he flies. It works in combat, and PF+FB+AEP is no different.
- Rule Nr. 5 - Altitude is your best friend. Altitude is potential energy (see Rule Nr. 1), and it also gives you plenty of options. Most of the guys who seem to get killed alot in the P-38 are low, and slow too, for that matter.
- Rule Nr. 6 - Practice, Practice, Practice. If you want to be good at a particular plane you have to fly it until you know it like "the back of your hand"; the P-38 is no exception. I see lot's of guys on our server change planes every time they respawn. Combat pilots know their mounts well; you must too. As for the gunnery issues, use Quick mission Builder to practice head-on and slashing attacks on Zekes and other TnB planes until you can do them in your sleep. If you put your bullet stream in front of one of these planes and he flys into it, he is going to be in big trouble.

The FMs in the sim "...are what they are". All I can tell you is _IF_ I use the rules above, I almost always come back from every mission I fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very helpful, Don! Thanks. I'll look for you on Warclouds...

*runs off to get yoke and pedals set up*

Bull_dog_
12-10-2004, 05:04 PM
I have noticed a change in PF on the DM too...lots of loss of elevator. I fly the P-38 alot and I believe the P-38 had lots of intangible assets that just didn't get modelled. I was so excited that Oleg would do the FM for it because of the complexity of this engine, but I have been so dissapointed in the outcome.

The J can hold its own in 43 servers as long as you don't have the Mk108's and boosted 109's to contend with. At low altitude, I think the Lightning should rule in that environment...IRL, the Lightning excelled in low to medium altitudes but got its lunch eaten in high altitude escort missions where engine failure, fouled plugs, freezing cockpits and those types of issues hampered it.

The L model is nothing but a self propelled Target buoy in a 44 server w/out suprise on your side...makes one wonder why they left them in bright aluminum????

Most of the flaws are minor, but together added up they make the Lightning a poor representation of the real fighter.
1. Compressibility...the only aircraft in the entire sim that enters compressibility and that is modelled wrong. Compressibility only occurs when dives start at high altitude...below 18,000ft it was not a factor...you can read that in soooo many places. Once the air thickened, the plane could be slowed down so the aircraft had to be in compressibility before it reached low altitude for the effect to happen.
2. Elevator authority...very poor at speed. The lightning had very positive controls that got heavy w/ speed but the yoke system allowed more pressure to be brought to bear. The elevator authority on the plane makes B&Z a very ineffective tactic. The L model should snap around at speed, but doesn't because other aircraft don't have the heavy controls modelled and becuase the plane is in compressibility or suffering from reduced elevator control due to speed...talk about a contradiction!
3. Pitch...it is aweful making the Lightning perhapse the most unstable gun platform in the game.
4. acceleration...someone posted in another thread that it was 2.8mph/sec...verrrry quick. I don't get that feeling in game
5. Stall characteristics. It was a great stall fighter capable of excellent slow speed handling and turning. It had the lowest stall speed of any figher of its time and when it did stall, it mushed rather than spin and had lots of forewarning. The exception to this is when it had external stores. Bombs and drop tanks made stall characteristics very wicked. In game, you spin often requiring lots of altitude to recover.
6) As far as I can tell the torquing of engines is not modelled. It was a real advantage and I really don't know if it is an engine limitation or not. I have a vague memory of someone posting something long ago that Oleg didn't believe that it was a real tactic. I know people put words into Oleg's mouth a lot so I don't necessarily believe that, but the reality is that the advantage that I've read about is not modelled in game. I have read over and over that the L model in particular was a great dogfighter, but didn't get too much opportunity because the Mustang had replaced it in Europe and no matter how manueverable the L was, it couldn't compete with Japanese fighters of the time. I have read that it could out turn Fw's and 109's and climbed like a homesick angel.
7. Last but not least, zoom climb. It was best in class at hanging on a prop and back sliding in hammerheads and had a really,really good slow speed climb with a high climb angle. Other single engined aircraft should torque spin as airflow diminishes over control surfaces, but I think overall most single engined fighters are overmodelled in this respect and the Lightning is undermodelled...not torque meant engines wide open in the verticle no matter what the airspeed. Zoom climb was legendary.

Of course many of these aspects have a large qualitative component and are therefore a little hard to find facts about this. I love the lightning but I think people who fly Luftwaffe planes love it even more. I know that when I see one online, it is an easy kill for me unless it has alot of altitude on me and chooses not to engage. The plane is effective in cockpit on servers as there is a big element of suprise and close up, with a steady hand the firing arrangement is such that the lightning can demolish an opponent, but the pitch of the aircraft makes it very difficult if you are manuevering at all.

I dearly hope Oleg is not done with this aircraft because it needs lots of work. It was a capable and effective fighter during WWII and is the 90 pound weakling in FB/AEP/PF. Reminds me alot of the original P-47...there were people who loved that plane too and said how great it was, but it was only great IF you had a 5000 ft altitude edge, wingmen and were a great shot. In WWII that would have accounted for a lot of dead allied pilots.

VF-29_Sandman
12-10-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Trim *should* be in the Manual (never looked for it actually).

I recommend mapping trim to mousewheel, or joystick rotary if you have fancy stick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and just how do u map rudder trim to a mousewheel...tried to map it, didnt work

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 07:51 PM
Trim elevator so you can go hands off, and take feet off the rudder whether you trim rudder or not.

ya, trim elevator--sorry for throwing the whole "flight sim" webboard into disarrayed confusion.

VF-29_Sandman
12-10-2004, 07:58 PM
it isnt the elevator that causes the 38 to shoot like a drunk, its the yawing.

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 08:07 PM
Well, they were saying the guns firing caused the gunshake. So yaw is causing gunshake. This is getting more bizzare.

VF-29_Sandman
12-10-2004, 08:12 PM
fly the 38 in an actual combat situation and u'd see what we're talkin about. comparing the jug or corsair with deflection visibility, the 38 should shoot 2x's more accurate. right now it doesnt at the range it did in rl.

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 08:55 PM
So Nagual is right, the rudder modding or dogfighter rudder skills cause what we want to name "the gunshake."

Copperhead310th
12-11-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh my.. This may be a first for me, I hope I am not getting ill.

I totally agree with Pipper. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

EVERYTHING I have ever read has said that the P-38 was a rock solid gun platform. It had it's strengths and it's weaknesses like any other fighter, and in the Pacific it was an excellent fighter.

In Europe, that was really another story. I read an interview with Gunther Rall once where he was finally coaxed into giving his real opinion on the plane and he said, "We sent the inexperienced fighter pilots in when we saw a P-38. They were really no trouble for the 109."

I can only assume that he was talking about turn and fighting from an advantage against them, of course.

The P-38 in this game needs a large alt advantage to be effective, but when you dive in on someone, the exaggerated compression kills the B&Z attack. (Much like the exaggerated elevator problems in the 109) The problem is that when forced to turn fight, the thing really feels like a brick at slower speeds - also not when I have ever read.

The main problems with this bird IRL were that they were a maintenance nightmare. They were tricky to fly, but gave a pilot good chance to survive. They turned well for a large heavy plane, but what exactly does "Turned well" mean... compared to what?

Those are all snippets from pilot accounts, and as such you can read them for what they are, or read into them in some cases.

I think the P-38 we have in the game matches speed, climb, roll, and turn tables pretty closely. Less tangable things like compression, energy retention, torque, and DM are somewhat suspect after reading pilot accounts.

Personally it is my favorite allied plane to fly because it is hard to be good in it just like my 190.

I admit that I havent flown it since PF because I have been really trying to learn the art of T&B in the Japanese planes.

Did they fix the rediculas wheel bounce on landing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is important to note that Gunther Rall was almost killed by a P-38.....and met the p-38 pilot years latter at Maxwell AFB & they became friends... He told the p-38 pilot "That was you that day? you dam near killed me!" Funny but true story. can't recall the details. i think Skychimp posted it way back.

I would tend to agree with the majority...the P-38's need a lot of work to get where they realistically need to be. At the moment the P-38's are only good for Ground attck and close air support missions. and they are good at this role so long as you have top cover. even in lage groups of 7 or 8 aircraft they are vunerable. As for dogfighting in the 38....your chances of surviving any 1943/44 scenerio are slim & none. You just cannot compeate with the aircraft you face on a historical server match up.

Luftcaca
12-11-2004, 09:01 AM
It is important to note that Gunther Rall was almost killed by a P-38. True....and met the p-38 pilot years latter at Maxwell AFB.

yes, but it is also important to mention that even if a famous ace almost got downed by a kind of plane it doesnt necessarily meeans that this plane is lethal...for instance Marseilles was shot down by the turret of a Blenheim if I remember well...what were the odds? lol

if Rall said that they used to send the rookie to attack the lightnings, it just means that P-38 was an easy target for the LW birds, whoever flew em

Copperhead310th
12-11-2004, 01:20 PM
P-38 performance numbers.

i thought they were important to this thread so i moved them over here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Origianly Posted by: Leadspitter in the GD.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Note that the Allisons in the P-38J-5-Lo through P-38J-25-Lo were Allison V-1710 F17 models, where as the Allisons in the P-38L-5-Lo and later were Allison V-1710 F30 models.

I threw some comparison numbers from some Japanese planes in for fun, WideWing gave me those too.

Much of this data is directly from Lockheed tests on the P-38 during production.

Time to height:
P-38F from sea level to 10,000 ft at 48 in. Hg. MAP, 2,900 rpm: 3.56 min.
P-38F from brake release to 10,000 ft.: 4 min, 35 sec.
P-38J sea level to 23,800 ft, 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 6.19 min., still
maintaining 2,900 fpm at that altitude.
P-38L sea level to 20,000 ft. 60 in. Hg. MAP, 3,000 rpm: 4.91min, still
maintaining 3,450 fpm at that altitude.

P-38G 345 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 402 mph @ 25,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 2,885 fpm.avg.
P-38H 352 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 409 mph @ 22,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,070 fpm.avg.
P-38J 360 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 421 mph @ 22,500 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,585 fpm.avg.
P-38L 365 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 442 mph @ 22,500 ft. (WEP) / Climb: 3,750 fpm.avg.

Ratings [minutes] Power RPM Manifold [in.Hg] Altitude [ft]
Normal (no limit) 1,100 2,600 44 30,000
Take Off (5) 1,475 3,000 54 SL
Military (15) 1,475 3,000 54 30,000
WEP (5) 1,725 3,000 60 28,700

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

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

The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state
414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30
Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and
I'll go into that a little later.

The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.

The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP, where as
the -30 made 1725 hp in WEP. The additional power could push the
L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren Bodie concludes the maximum speed
in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie
obtained his data directly from Lockheed, where he was employed as
an engineer on the U-2 and F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except
Bodie as a more credible source than Green and Swanborough et al.


Typical speeds Avg. climb rate to alt. at left
Ki-44 378 mph @ 17,500 ft. / Climb: 3,700 fpm.
Ki-61 362 mph @ 16,400 ft. / Climb: 2,380 fpm.
Ki-84 392 mph @ 21,325 ft. / Climb: 3,790 fpm.
Ki-100 366 mph @ 19,700 ft. / Climb: 2,750 fpm
N1K1 363 mph @ 17,700 ft. / Climb: 2,510 fpm.
N1K2 371 mph @ 18,400 ft. / Climb: 2,675 fpm.
J2M3 365 mph @ 17,900 ft. / Climb: 3,570 fpm.

P-38G 345 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 402 mph @ 25,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 2,885 fpm.avg.
P-38H 352 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 409 mph @ 22,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,070 fpm.avg.
P-38J 360 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 421 mph @ 22,500 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,585 fpm.avg.
P-38L 365 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 442 mph @ 22,500 ft. (WEP) / Climb: 3,750 fpm.avg.


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

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


The P-38L, continued

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

Korolov
12-11-2004, 02:45 PM
It was Galland who was almost killed by a P-38, not Gunther Rall. I'm almost certain that Rall never flew the Fw-190D-9 in combat.

Also, for every pilot quote that calls the P-38 a easy kill for Axis pilots, I can provide a equal and oppoisite reaction from another pilot. It doesn't prove much of anything, aside from that the pilots flying the P-38 weren't much good.

Example:

Franz Stiegler, 28 victories in the Bf-109 flying in JG27, North Africa:
"[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make a attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."

Wow. So, does that mean the P-38 was a super fighter?

Of course not. It simply suggests that pilots in JG27 had trouble adapting to certain characteristics of the P-38, which at the time was a relatively new fighter on the scene.

In terms of using the P-38 in FB/PF, the only option you have is to learn how to use it as is. Much as we'd like to change characteristics of certain aircraft modeled, it takes a lot of evidence to sway 1C's point of view.

OldMan____
12-11-2004, 06:04 PM
P38 is a soberb mix of highs and lows. It has the BEST acceleration you could desire..even greater than 109. It has a huge set of weapons in the nose..

It is very dangerous when flown correctly. But All must admit.. if flow by distracted pilots... it is an easy prey due to its size.

Before Corsair came. it was my favorite US plane in game

Bull_dog_
12-11-2004, 07:51 PM
I think what can be garnered from data and pilot accounts is that the Lightning was a competitive aircraft with strengths and weaknesses. It was capable and like many aircraft had a performance envelope that was superior in some respects...but not all.

Now that does not translate in game and if Copperhead's data is correct, then the L model is nothing close to the real thing. Just the lack of Water injection is enough for me to know that this bird is either not right or not modelled with correct information.

Top speed of 440mph and a 4225ft/min climb rate falling off to 3940 at 23,000 ft....are you kidding me! If the L model had those kinds of performance numbers along with the Compressibility thing fixed I can imagine the tone of the posts would change significantly.

My only suggestion would be to send Oleg your data and your source. The Ki is modelled off of max performance numbers...why not the Lightning? I won't answer that...that is for Oleg.

Korolov
12-11-2004, 10:41 PM
I'm not so sure I'd want to be going 440mph in the P-38L we have in FB. Compression gets incredibly bad at around 690kmh IAS as is.

faustnik
12-11-2004, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I'm not so sure I'd want to be going 440mph in the P-38L we have in FB. Compression gets incredibly bad at around 690kmh IAS as is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They need a real big red label on the dash for infrequent P-38 pilots about the compression. It would avoid embarrassing lawn darting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Copperhead310th
12-12-2004, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
It was Galland who was almost killed by a P-38, not Gunther Rall. I'm almost certain that Rall never flew the Fw-190D-9 in combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Sorry i always seem to get th 2 confused.
thanks for clearing that up.
i stand corrected.

Daiichidoku
12-12-2004, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I have noticed a change in PF on the DM too...lots of loss of elevator. I fly the P-38 alot and I believe the P-38 had lots of intangible assets that just didn't get modelled. I was so excited that Oleg would do the FM for it because of the complexity of this engine, but I have been so dissapointed in the outcome.

The J can hold its own in 43 servers as long as you don't have the Mk108's and boosted 109's to contend with. At low altitude, I think the Lightning should rule in that environment...IRL, the Lightning excelled in low to medium altitudes but got its lunch eaten in high altitude escort missions where engine failure, fouled plugs, freezing cockpits and those types of issues hampered it.

The L model is nothing but a self propelled Target buoy in a 44 server w/out suprise on your side...makes one wonder why they left them in bright aluminum????

Most of the flaws are minor, but together added up they make the Lightning a poor representation of the real fighter.
1. Compressibility...the only aircraft in the entire sim that enters compressibility and that is modelled wrong. Compressibility only occurs when dives start at high altitude...below 18,000ft it was not a factor...you can read that in soooo many places. Once the air thickened, the plane could be slowed down so the aircraft had to be in compressibility before it reached low altitude for the effect to happen.
2. Elevator authority...very poor at speed. The lightning had very positive controls that got heavy w/ speed but the yoke system allowed more pressure to be brought to bear. The elevator authority on the plane makes B&Z a very ineffective tactic. The L model should snap around at speed, but doesn't because other aircraft don't have the heavy controls modelled and becuase the plane is in compressibility or suffering from reduced elevator control due to speed...talk about a contradiction!
3. Pitch...it is aweful making the Lightning perhapse the most unstable gun platform in the game.
4. acceleration...someone posted in another thread that it was 2.8mph/sec...verrrry quick. I don't get that feeling in game
5. Stall characteristics. It was a great stall fighter capable of excellent slow speed handling and turning. It had the lowest stall speed of any figher of its time and when it did stall, it mushed rather than spin and had lots of forewarning. The exception to this is when it had external stores. Bombs and drop tanks made stall characteristics very wicked. In game, you spin often requiring lots of altitude to recover.
6) As far as I can tell the torquing of engines is not modelled. It was a real advantage and I really don't know if it is an engine limitation or not. I have a vague memory of someone posting something long ago that Oleg didn't believe that it was a real tactic. I know people put words into Oleg's mouth a lot so I don't necessarily believe that, but the reality is that the advantage that I've read about is not modelled in game. I have read over and over that the L model in particular was a great dogfighter, but didn't get too much opportunity because the Mustang had replaced it in Europe and no matter how manueverable the L was, it couldn't compete with Japanese fighters of the time. I have read that it could out turn Fw's and 109's and climbed like a homesick angel.
7. Last but not least, zoom climb. It was best in class at hanging on a prop and back sliding in hammerheads and had a really,really good slow speed climb with a high climb angle. Other single engined aircraft should torque spin as airflow diminishes over control surfaces, but I think overall most single engined fighters are overmodelled in this respect and the Lightning is undermodelled...not torque meant engines wide open in the verticle no matter what the airspeed. Zoom climb was legendary.

Of course many of these aspects have a large qualitative component and are therefore a little hard to find facts about this. I love the lightning but I think people who fly Luftwaffe planes love it even more. I know that when I see one online, it is an easy kill for me unless it has alot of altitude on me and chooses not to engage. The plane is effective in cockpit on servers as there is a big element of suprise and close up, with a steady hand the firing arrangement is such that the lightning can demolish an opponent, but the pitch of the aircraft makes it very difficult if you are manuevering at all.

I dearly hope Oleg is not done with this aircraft because it needs lots of work. It was a capable and effective fighter during WWII and is the 90 pound weakling in FB/AEP/PF. Reminds me alot of the original P-47...there were people who loved that plane too and said how great it was, but it was only great IF you had a 5000 ft altitude edge, wingmen and were a great shot. In WWII that would have accounted for a lot of dead allied pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Prob the best comment Ive ever seen on the 38 in FB concise, reasonable, factual, non-flaming and comprhensive.....it about sums up FB Lightning situ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 04:04 AM
".now it shakes like hell when I fire.."

Doesn't for me. People say this, but I've never encountered it myself. I like flying the P38 (altough the F4U has supplanted it in my affections currently).

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 04:13 AM
"This is a heavy aircraft with an inherently stable construction. Look at the center section. It's basically a massive H, held in place by the engines. Should be very stable as its reputation has been recorded."

The nose cap construction is relatively light, however, much like the construction of any aircraft nose that does not contain an engine. The issue here is the rigidity of the mounting to this nose cap construction, not the weight of the whole plane. If the mounts vibrate under firing stresses then it will disperse the rounds, although the plane itself won't be bounced around as it is heavy. However I have yet to see the supposed poor gunnery stability myself and I've flown the P38 A LOT. As I said before in other threads I managed to down a 109 at close range with just 11 .50 rounds hitting (forgot to fire the cannon). It works pretty well.

With something like the cowl guns of the 109 the mounting is to the engine. Essentially the plane hangs off the engine so the mounting is very rigid.

It's also worth remembering the initial purpose of the P38 was to be a high altitude interceptor with a long loiter time for attacking bombers. It was originally designed around a 23mm cannon, later changed to 37mm before finally settling on the 20mm. It was part of the same specification call that also produced the P39 and P40. (The P39 really didn't meet the specification very well!)

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 04:19 AM
"IMO, there should be far less head shake when shooting in this bird (As an aside, I will reiterate what I posted before, that when firing the 5x50 in the B 25 J, there is a fair ammount of headshake...in a B 25?!?...thats just plain silly...Ive seen the sidepak guns on a B 25 fire, and the GUNS shake like the dickens, but how can the pilot of such a large and heavy craft have headshake from 5x 50s?)"

Remember that the nose cap and fuselage sides of the B25 were not originally designed to hold rigid mounts for 50 cal guns. These were fitted onto later versions, but the nose cap is relatively lightly constructed and the mounts not as rigid as an engine mount. The nose caps of many strafers could be replaced relatively quickly with another nose type. This wasn't a problem for the B25, though, as the idea was for the 50 cals to be used to strafe relatively large fixed targets so weight of fire rather than pin point accuracy was the requirement. The weight of the plane isn't so much the issue as the rigidity of the mount.

On a side note wing mounts in terms are possibly more rigid than ones in nose caps as there is a lot of additional structure in a wing to which the mount can be fixed. However the extra factor in wings are flex and twisting as although you can rigidly mount the gun to the large amounts of wing structure the wings are designed to be strong but somewhat flexible in fighters. (Strong but inflexible would make them brittle).

|CoB|_Spectre
12-12-2004, 06:36 AM
I strongly suggest any fan of the P-38 read Martin Caidin's "Forked Tail Devil". So much will become clear concerning the growing pains of, what was at that time, the most sophisticated fighter in the world. The reasons behind the dichotomy experienced in the ETO and PTO are explained through the advantage of hindsight. I'd been meaning to read it, but only just got around to it and I now have a better appreciation for one of my all-time favorite warbirds. Now...if can get my time machine working, I'll go pick me up a couple of those war surplus L-models the US government sold for $1250.00 including full tanks of fuel. Cheerio!

pacettid
12-12-2004, 07:25 AM
Combat tactics, by P-38 ace, Maj. Thomas B. McGuire Jr.:
http://rhinobytes.com/haze/mcguire.htm

Bull_dog_
12-12-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
I strongly suggest any fan of the P-38 read Martin Caidin's "Forked Tail Devil". So much will become clear concerning the growing pains of, what was at that time, the most sophisticated fighter in the world. The reasons behind the dichotomy experienced in the ETO and PTO are explained through the advantage of hindsight. I'd been meaning to read it, but only just got around to it and I now have a better appreciation for one of my all-time favorite warbirds. Now...if can get my time machine working, I'll go pick me up a couple of those war surplus L-models the US government sold for $1250.00 including full tanks of fuel. Cheerio! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read the book and it is an excellent read. The author explores both the positives and the negatives and it is this book that has done a lot to shape my current opinion of the current version we fly....the L model in particular.

For any Lightning fan who hasn't read it...read it...get it for Xmas. You'll come back to this forum even more determined to lobby Oleg to continue to improve its flight and damage model

|CoB|_Spectre
12-12-2004, 06:47 PM
So true, Bull_dog_, but unfortunately much of the "evidence" of the P-38's attributes regarding toughness and maneuverabilty, particularly at slow speed, is anecdotal and Oleg does not put much creedence in it. One thing I've noticed is that, following Tommy McGuire's axiom of not letting your speed get below 300 mph, I have trouble getting the blasted Lightning going that fast unless I'm in a shallow dive at full power. Apparently either Major McGuire had a special technique or the Lightning, as modeled, does not want go that fast unless the nose is below the horizon. The pilot's recollections of being able to dictate the fight by doing such things as pulling away from Zekes in a shallow climb is not something I'm able to easily duplicate. Granted, I'm not the best pilot around, but does anyone else find this to be true?

WOLFMondo
12-13-2004, 04:08 AM
300mph is easy to achive in the lightning, it rockets along even with 2 1000lbs'ers and 12 HVARS hanging off it at sea level. Its keeping that 300mph while climbing and turning that can be difficult.

It might be easier with 11 other P38's working together, communicating with each other as a squad. Even on servers with TS I've only seen a few P38 drivers working togther rarely.

pacettid
12-13-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
300mph is easy to achive in the lightning, it rockets along even with 2 1000lbs'ers and 12 HVARS hanging off it at sea level. Its keeping that 300mph while climbing and turning that can be difficult.

It might be easier with 11 other P38's working together, communicating with each other as a squad. Even on servers with TS I've only seen a few P38 drivers working togther rarely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really think the key to following Maj. McGuire's recommendation is using shallow climbs and dives, and having patience.

After I make my first pass if I fight the urge to pull up too steeply and I have the patience to follow his advice to not turn back until I well clear of the enemy fighter, I will only drop below 300 mph for the short period of time it takes to turn around. I also try to climb back up to at least 3000-4000ft. before my turn. If I am well clear of the enemy fighter, the momentary slowdown in the trun is of no consequence, as I start a shallow dive again to pick-up speed for another headon, as soon as I am on the reciprocal course.

If I have just one of my squadron mates with me on comm, and we work as a team, we can "ripsaw" most Zeke drivers in a very short period of time.

WWMaxGunz
12-13-2004, 06:09 AM
Disadvantage of P-38 is those blind areas of the booms. With teams to keep SA it should
not be so big a problem. In the sim, the inability of view as real for all players tends
to even it out online. P-38 needs TIR and rolling flight maybe most?

I just hope that people who read many posts here don't expect that the real war was fought
all the time at maximum power or in any way is like most online but when I read posts that
state such and such a plane online is this way or that, it gives me the jeebies.

WOLFMondo
12-13-2004, 06:42 AM
You don't have to land and explain to the angry mechanics who'll be stripping down those engines why you needed to have the engine running at 110% all the time in IL2 though.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacettid:

I really think the key to following Maj. McGuire's recommendation is using shallow climbs and dives, and having patience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I try to treat it like the P47 in some respects but your right, its the patience thing.

ZG77_Nagual
12-13-2004, 08:43 AM
Also standing corrected on the Rall/Galland thing. I've done a little more checking and don't see the shake on the .50s. I think it may be rudder oscillation people are seeing.

I did read somewhere the 38 could encounter compressibility in level flight at altitude - due to it's high speed.

I'm all for lobbying Oleg as it does look like the L at least is undermodeled. If you have good data - send it along to him.

k5054
12-13-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It was Galland who was almost killed by a P-38, not Gunther Rall. I'm almost certain that Rall never flew the Fw-190D-9 in combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Galland did? What date did this encounter take place. I ask because the alleged US participant, Lowell, was in P-51s before the combat debut of the D-9. Galland did have a personal A-8, and occeasionally (or so the legend goes) got into combat with it. If he flew a D-9, what unit did he go into action with?

People wishing to find out historical facts about aircraft would be well advised to take Martin Caidin with a pinch of salt.

Similarly, Warren Bodie's work on the P-38 is not entirely free of bias and special pleading, although he is generally well-informed.

geetarman
12-13-2004, 11:24 AM
maxgunz hits on an important point. The 38 is not designed to fight the typical OL furball you see day in and day out. With everyone milling around at 2000' and below, looping and turning, you're in for trouble.

VF-29_Sandman
12-13-2004, 12:03 PM
gunz does have a point with the boom blind spots, tho i tend to see the corsair's almost total lack of rear view more of a liability. main spots in the lightning obviously are over the engine and wings.
my main beef is, why does the rudder oscillate so bad during firing when other nose mounted guns wont cause any oscillation anywhere near as bad if any. during a re-install, in the 3.0 stand alone, the tracer's for the 50's were about 2x's brighter than the 1's that's in the merged, and there's never been a reason givin for that.
it may be just me, but it seems that guns from the 38 travel to the target just a little bit slower than those of wing guns. go figure.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 02:14 PM
The P38 is best BnZing I think. But you have to be careful with that compression. BnZ with a J and not keep an eye on things and you become a lawn dart. Been there and done that, and embarassingly online too.

Korolov
12-13-2004, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
And Galland did? What date did this encounter take place. I ask because the alleged US participant, Lowell, was in P-51s before the combat debut of the D-9. Galland did have a personal A-8, and occeasionally (or so the legend goes) got into combat with it. If he flew a D-9, what unit did he go into action with?

People wishing to find out historical facts about aircraft would be well advised to take Martin Caidin with a pinch of salt.

Similarly, Warren Bodie's work on the P-38 is not entirely free of bias and special pleading, although he is generally well-informed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forget the absolute details of the story (wish I had a link of where I remember it coming from), but as I understand it, it was a late war dogfight between some Fw-190Ds and P-38s. The P-38 pilot managed to heavily damage one of the 190s, but was forced to break off due to low fuel.

Years later, during the 80s, at a fighter pilot meet, this pilot told Galland about this fight, and he leaped up and said "You almost killed me that day!"

I can't say for absolute certainty if the story is true or not, but it's been repeated several times. I'll see if I can find it again.

Bull_dog_
12-13-2004, 06:43 PM
Koro...that is how I remember the story too.

I typically don't pay much attention to single encounters, however this one was against a german experten and did not happen with the version of the Dora and L that we have ingame.

When reading different sources, I always look for similarities and differences in various stories that have unrelated sources. A wrong source is often copied over and over hence some of our misconceptions about performance.

But one thing that has always rang true around the J and especially L model Lightning is that these aircraft were competitive and in some areas of the performance envelope, superior than their opponents in Europe. The L in particular, was a dogfighter supreme at low and medium altitude. I find that reference over and over in many sources of different origin. It is due to the dive flaps, boost, Water Injection, climb rate improvements along with the already existing good turning radius, steady gun platform, slow speed stall and maneuvering ability and murderous weapons arrangement.

Not exactly what I'm flying in PF. If there was a way to break out the L model's kill ratio, I think people would be very suprised but I've never seen that and we'd be back to the counter argument of bad pilots....

But come to think of it, I am suprised at how few anti-Lightning posts there are here. Usually ever pro change post gets some of the outspoke anti's going too. I don't see much of it in this post...I think it is because the plane is bad enough that most agree it is way off or don't see it as any threat even if tweaked.

I'll bet Galland looked at the Lightning differently after his day when he just couldn't shake it off his tail.

Korolov
12-13-2004, 09:35 PM
My point of view is, no matter how much whining there is, the P-38 will never change.

But, as in Ivan's sig... "But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist."

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 01:17 AM
"Years later, during the 80s, at a fighter pilot meet, this pilot told Galland about this fight, and he leaped up and said "You almost killed me that day!""

Another piece of Galland trivia:

Back in the early 1970s in London a recreation/simulation of the command and control aspects of the Battle of Britain was conducted. (Later some of the people involved went on to form what became the Megagames group that specialised in doing large linked committee games along these lines). Adolf Galland commanded the Luftwaffe forces in this simulation. I can't remember what the outcome of the recreation was, though.

HayateAce
12-14-2004, 01:19 AM
"....compressibility would not occur if a dive was initiated below 25,000 ft."

So why do we have compressibility at 1000 meters? Seems wrong based on the info above.

No, .50s do not substantially shake the nose. Fire the 20mm only please. Tell me that a 14456 lbs (6556 kg) P38 should dance around more than a Yak 3 at 5,864 lbs. (2660 kg). The P38 weighs almost 3 times the Yak, but the Yak can fire controlled bursts from its 20mm and the nose hardly budges. This holds true for Laggs, La5/7s, Migs, you name it. I think even the P39 with the 20mm has a steady 20mm gun mount.

A few have tossed out a couple of theories about engine mounted guns, and possibly the P38 gun mounts had some problem?

That is just people guessing and it doesn't cut it.

The P38 20mm was mounted with what, 3 mil aluminum brackets or maybe tupperware? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I guarantee if a test pilot fired the weapons and the darn nose bounced like it does in FB, he would have told the engineers where to stick their flimsy gun mounts.

The issue is that over and over the P38 is listed as a very stable gun platform. Nobody has shown me one shred of documentation that the P38 nose would jump around when the 20mm was fired.

And again, which nobody will address:

"....compressibility would not occur if a dive was initiated below 25,000 ft."

So why do my controls lock up in a 650kph shallow dive at 2000 meters? (Elevators start becoming stiff earlier than that) The 190, Spit, Jug, La5 don't do this.

Yes, the 109 and Zero elevators become heavy on the controls at these speeds. They are supposed to. Design problem they are experiencing, NOT compressibility.

HayateAce
12-14-2004, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Also standing corrected on the Rall/Galland thing. I've done a little more checking and don't see the shake on the .50s. I think it may be rudder oscillation people are seeing.

I did read somewhere the 38 could encounter compressibility in level flight at altitude - due to it's high speed.

I'm all for lobbying Oleg as it does look like the L at least is undermodeled. If you have good data - send it along to him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"....compressibility would not occur if a dive was initiated below 25,000 ft."

k5054
12-14-2004, 01:53 AM
I would normally be considered a P-38 anti. I think the P-38 fans have constructed a web of self-delusion to explain the mediocre performance of the G,H and J models in the 8th AF. I don't believe in the 440mph L or the 1725hp Allison (well, not in service anyway).

BUT, the one we have in the game is not a good gun platform. There just is no evidence in the world to say that is true. Everybody without exception says it was good. I see it in a sort of dutch roll/ rudder oscillation, I don't see the shakes so much.
The other thing is the low alt diving into the ground (well, OK, you can only dive into the ground at low alt). I have no problem with compressibility high up, but we really ought to be seeing it low only at speeds above 500mph, 800kph, and it should slow right up when throttle is reduced. If those were fixed, and the slight hesitation in roll was modelled right, we'd have a P-38 which would compare with reality.

WWMaxGunz
12-14-2004, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
it may be just me, but it seems that guns from the 38 travel to the target just a little bit slower than those of wing guns. go figure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't go from impressions in a sim. Watch the bullet drop instead.

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 09:24 AM
Just want to reiterate - I don't see the gunnery problem - but based on all I've read I do agree the turn is undermodeled - as well as climb and top speed for the L. I'm wondering if some of the ET data on the 38 outturning 109s comes from the H model - which I believe was the best turning. Heres a bit from the oft-cited yarchive thread on the 38.

"In his book"The First and the Last" Adolf Galland, who fought
&gt;against
&gt;them said that the P-38 was no better than the ME-110
&gt;so called fighter.
&gt; If P-38s with better performance had been built they may
&gt;have had a better chance.
&gt;
&gt;

We have had some exhausting debates on the merits of the P-38; both
here and over at rec.military.aviation. Much of the effort in these debates
has been to overcome the post war myth that the P-51 was best fighter
to emerge from WWII. Let's establish a few undisputed facts. Undisputed
by those who have done the research. Frequently disputed by those who have
not. I'll provide ten reasons why Galland's comments should be dismissed
as mere piss and wind.

1) Adolf Galland has never been accused of being the standard of objective
writing, or public speaking. A fine pilot and tactician, Galland frequent wrote
and spoke about things, of which, he had minimal firsthand knowledge and
understanding. About 15 years ago he got into a discussion with several
former P-38 pilots about his comments in the First and the Last. Pressed,
he admitted that his comments were not so much his own, but those of
some of his pilots. He also admitted that a well flown P-38 was a very
dangerous foe. One of the P-38 pilots involved in this discussion is still alive
today and a personal friend.

2) Any P-38 pilot was eager to encounter an Me 110. They were very easy
kills for the Lightning.

3) From the P-38J-25-LO on, the Lightning was likely the finest fighter package
flying in 1944. It offered versatility unmatched by any other fighter in any
theater, flown by any nation. There was virtually no mission beyond its means.

4) In terms of range, a properly flown P-38J or L (this means using the correct
power and propeller settings) out-ranged the P-51D by as much as 200 miles.

5) The Japanese considered the P-38 to be a far greater adversary than the
P-47 of the P-51.

6) The TRUE maximum speed of a P-38L was not the much published 414 mph.
This reflects Military Power, not War Emergency Power. In WEP, a clean P-38L
could exceed 440 mph. The P-38J with its lower rated engines could pull speeds
in the low to mid 420's.

7) At corner speed, any P-38 model could EASILY out-turn any fighter in the
Luftwaffe inventory.

8) The P-38L could out-climb the P-51D and Fw-190D by better than 30%.

9) Most Luftwaffe pilots felt that it was suicide to make a head-on attack
against a P-38. The P-38's four .50 caliber MGs and one 20mm cannon
concentrated in a 30 inch circle was devestating.

10) The P-38 was the only fighter in the ETO that could be flown into an
accelerated stall at 1,000 ft. without fear of torque-rolling into an
unrecoverable attitude. Nothing in the ETO could stay with a P-38 down
in the tree tops. Absolutely nothing.

I should give 10 reasons why the P-38 a problematic fighter, to balance the
scales a bit.

1) Early models had only one generator. Suffer a failure of the associated
engine and you were in deep trouble, especially at high altitudes where the
battery had been cold-soaked and produced inadequate power. Without power,
it became impossible to control the Curtiss Electric propellers, which would go
into feather.

2) Models prior to the P-38L-5-LO had terrible heaters and defrosters.

3) Models prior to the P-38J-25-LO lacked dive flaps and were dangerous
to dive at speeds beyond Mach .68. This allowed German pilots to escape
in a steep dive and P-38 pilots were reluctant to follow.

4) At high altitudes, P-38s prior to the P-38L-1-LO tended to suffer engine
failures. This was related to a poorly designed intake manifold, intercooler
over-efficiency and poorly formulated avgas.

5) The lack of automatic engine controls in early models.

6) Poor roll response in early P-38's. Roll rate in later models with
hydraulically boosted ailerons was outstanding.

7) The P-38 required nearly twice the man-hours to maintain the fighter.
It also consumed 80% more fuel than a P-51D for a given distance.

8) Access to engines and systems was poor due to the tight fitting
cowling and crowded booms.

9) Unreliable turbocharger regulators in early models.

10) Poor rear vision, especially below .

The P-38 was not without serious problems. However, as a combat
plane it was among the very best. Galland was wrong, and he knew it.
Perhaps there was something about a big twin out-flying his 109 that
caused him to refuse to acknowledge what he KNEW to be true. Of
course, that is just speculation. Nonetheless, the fact that Galland could
not stand up to the challange of the P-38 pilots indicates that he was
being less than honest in his memiors. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard."

HayateAce
12-14-2004, 09:38 AM
Good job to post the negs. There are a number and it should be harder to win in than say, a 109.

We do not want some lamer DF noob ride.

Just a virtually real Lightning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 09:42 AM
I'd just like to look back and see those 109s falling off my turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I'd just like to look back and see those 109s falling off my turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe against a g6... think the rest would stay with u untill u stall, and fall outa the sky
maybe not emil and f.. those would be the most likely ones todo it in fb..

Korolov
12-14-2004, 01:56 PM
The P-38F's in North Africa didn't seem to have any trouble outturning 109Fs there.

k5054
12-14-2004, 04:48 PM
Evidence that P-38 could out-turn 109Fs in Africa? Bearing in mind that one US FG with the P-38 had to be withdrawn from combat at one point, something that AFAIK didn't happen to any other US fighter anywhere? Wing loading of 109F about 35 lb/sqft, P-38F 50 lb/sqft. DMMFL.

Oh, yes, there is a turning regime where p-38 had a trick turn, but only when flying very slow, when the extent of the prop wash over the wing, and the lack of torque, allowed it to turn well. But this is not really anything but a last-ditch act, you wouldn't want to fly around at 140mph or less in a combat zone, and the Afrika 109s generally did not do so.

WWMaxGunz
12-14-2004, 05:21 PM
People who have "done the research" should name the sources.
Sounds like don't mean is.

Korolov
12-14-2004, 05:47 PM
It had more to do with the situation advantage/disadvantage, k5054. A good example would be in a verticle turning axis - especially if a P-38 executed as such with a altitude advantage.

While I think knowing the statistics are pretty important, and pilot's stories can't be fully trusted, one must remember that in combat, it's not going to be a 1vs1 "my specs beat your specs" match. Wing loading goes out the window if the one pilot or the other doesn't fly his plane to maximum effect. Hence, the "didn't seem to have any trouble" - doesn't mean they didn't have any, but recorded or memorized instances of trouble are hard to come by. The guy that got shot down is going to have a tough time making it back to base to say how he got shot down, no?

geetarman
12-14-2004, 08:49 PM
Good post Nagual! It felt good tonight taking out 2 KI-43's and a P-51 in a single df in the 38 OL!

Hell, I'll give up the compressability issue, if we could just get the stellar low alt dogfighter the P-38L truly was.

k5054
12-15-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Galland was wrong, and he knew it.
Perhaps there was something about a big twin out-flying his 109 that
caused him to refuse to acknowledge what he KNEW to be true. Of
course, that is just speculation. Nonetheless, the fact that Galland could
not stand up to the challange of the P-38 pilots indicates that he was
being less than honest in his memiors. Another fact, that he himself barely
escaped with his scalp from a lone P-38L, should settle any arguments.
That P-38, by the way, had to break off due to fuel limits being exceeded.
The U.S. pilot was from the 364th FG. Galland was flying a Fw-190D.
Galland avoided discussing this event unless pressed hard."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Purely to nail this stupid story, the 364th got its P-51s in July 44, there were no D-9s around for at least another three months. US pilots were reporting long-nose 190s long before the Dora entered service, this is almost cetainly a misident of a 109. Which the P-38 did not shoot down.

ZG77_Nagual
12-15-2004, 08:49 AM
My interest is just in having fun - basically - but also seeing that the best info gets to Oleg and his team - so I have no problem with being wrong.

That said - I haven't seen a specific date on the p38L/dora account. I have seen a more comprehensive transcript of the discussion between Galland and the P38L pilot however in which both seemed to acknowlege the A/C involved. There was also a good description of the peculiar circumstances of the fight - which took place at very low altitude in some sort of bowl-like depression. Frankly it's not in the least surprising that the p38 would outturn a dora - it does both doras and antons in the game and, other than getting Galland to qualify his mis-statements about the P38 the incident, true or not, is of marginal relevance to this conversation.

p1ngu666
12-15-2004, 11:14 AM
wasnt dora in combat trials or something? ive seen it stated somewhere...

VF-29_Sandman
12-16-2004, 06:10 PM
if looking at outside view with guns firing and the ship isnt being kicked around from the recoil, then why is it that it isnt like that from the pit? if ur going to model a pilot that shakes like a leaf from recoil, then it should affect all planes since the stick will wind up bucking rather severe from 6-8 hmg's firing.

Korolov
12-16-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Purely to nail this stupid story, the 364th got its P-51s in July 44, there were no D-9s around for at least another three months. US pilots were reporting long-nose 190s long before the Dora entered service, this is almost cetainly a misident of a 109. Which the P-38 did not shoot down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether or not the story is true, it's quite clear something bugs you about the P-38. Care to share?

VF-29_Sandman
12-16-2004, 10:00 PM
mebby u beat him down in a 38 koro LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

HayateAce
12-17-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
if looking at outside view with guns firing and the ship isnt being kicked around from the recoil, then why is it that it isnt like that from the pit? if ur going to model a pilot that shakes like a leaf from recoil, then it should affect all planes since the stick will wind up bucking rather severe from 6-8 hmg's firing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt Sand,

Firing 45 to 90 degree deflection is no show-stopping hardship as is, but you will really notice it firing directly from a target's 6. The 20mm rounds can get bounced everywhere but on target.

Maybe ppl don't notice this so much because they are actually hitting at the same time with the .50s.

Unbelievers bind the 20mm to its own key and try shooting with ONLY the cannon.

WWMaxGunz
12-17-2004, 02:11 AM
The more guns there are and the higher rate of fire, the smoother the recoil
should be. Just as musical instruments are built to resonate frequencies, it
is also practice to structure other things to deaden, average or otherwise
cut down on vibration. That is only good engineering practice.

Best place to watch where rounds go is from POV of target during track playback.

k5054
12-17-2004, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Whether or not the story is true, it's quite clear something bugs you about the P-38. Care to share? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the aircraft itself is not the problem, it's the way some people think of it as something really special when it was not IMHO. It was decent enough, and did OK, especially for a twin. It did not, however, deliver as much airpower per dollar, airframe, fighter group or any other measure, as a P-51 or P-47. It was in fact a limited design. Brave men performed well in it, and it had a very good record against the Japanese, with its massive speed advantage. But the P-38 bigots can't leave it at that, they have to make it out to be the superfighter of WW2. They quote their Warren Bodie (and why should a Lockheed employee quoting Lockheed factory figures be biased, Lockheed is an honourable company never linked to scandal!) and their Martin Caidin fairy stories, they drag out that yarchive file, edited to remove all the anti-38 facts, they traduce the names of the Group commanders in the 8th AF who could not get their commands to perform as well as the 47 and 51 guys, they make excuses for all the 38s shortcomings and over-praise its advantages, and they DON'T check any facts, like the Galland story.

(Reader, if you think you are a P-38 bigot, the first step is to admit it to yourself. You can get help.)

And finally, yes the gun-firing shake and the low-alt death dive need to be fixed. The old dog should at least have some of its real-life abilities.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 06:06 AM
The P-38 was excellent for its designed role which was as a high altitude capable interceptor with a relatively heavy armament with a good loiter time. It was originally envisaged for bomber interception and a twin engined design allowed the possibility for it to return to base on a single engine if it encountered strong defensive fire. It is a testament to its design that in terms of performance it was pretty competitive with the P47 and P51. However of the three the P51 was simply cheaper per unit to manufacture which led to P38 production being eased off during WW2 and then the P47 being scrapped before Korea. Basically a financial concern.

VF-29_Sandman
12-17-2004, 09:05 AM
it was very expensive plane for its time...almost double in cost per unit vs the 51. add to the fact that it had more teething problems being such an advanced airframe didnt help matters either. what the 38 was back then, the b-1 is today. and we all know how much problems they had even gettin the bird off the ground.

k5054
12-17-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It was originally envisaged for bomber interception and a twin engined design allowed the possibility for it to return to base on a single engine if it encountered strong defensive fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All US fighters had the ability to return to base on a single engine!

A study was carried out after the war to establish vulnerability, you can find some data in Victory Roll by William Wolf (a very good read). There's a whole chapter, I'll just pick some relevant bits.

Loss rate of fighters hit by enemy fire:
ETO, Aug 43 to Aug 44.
P-47 22% of a/c hit were lost
P-38 39%
P-51 41%

The P-38s two engines only allowed it to perform 2% better than the famously vulnerable P-51!

Less than 10% of damaged P-38s returned to base on one engine. (Unqualified, may be ETO only)

For all later fighters in US service, obvioulsy a larger sample with PTO input:

Anti Aircraft vulnerability

P-51 29% lost of those hit by a/a
P-38 25%
P-47 10%
F4U 26%
F6F 25%
F4F 22% + FM-2

Enemy aircraft vulnerability

P-38 49% lost of those hit by E/A fire
P-51 46%
P-47 37%
F4U 46%
F6F 36%
F4F 25% +FM-2

In the Rabaul campaign, Oct 43 to Feb 44, P-38 air to air rate loss was 2.3%, same as the P-40. The operational loss rate was P-38 3%, P-40 2.8%. So the P-38 was not doing quite so well in the PTO as the P-40 as late as 1944. In losses at least, victories are not stated here.

oldschool1992
12-17-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
And finally, yes the gun-firing shake and the low-alt death dive need to be fixed. The old dog should at least have some of its real-life abilities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and they need to give it its real FM I think someone accidently assigned it the B25 FM

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 12:01 PM
"All US fighters had the ability to return to base on a single engine!"

Yes, but the other two planes proposed for the same specification were the P40 and P39. They could probably return on one engine but if one engine was disabled due to bomber defensive fire they'd be down to no engines :-) In the context of 3 types of planes all with inlines then the P38 should be more able to return to base after attacking bombers (but see note below). Of course in the end they did relatively few bomber intercepts, but that was due to an unforseen change in the strategic situation from the time the specifications were proposed.

Interestingly the P39 might have done well against bomber fire compared to the P40 due to the centre engine. Hard to say if a centre engine would make it more robust to enemy fire than a P38, though.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 12:06 PM
k5054:
It's hard to be sure how to interpret the figures as they are so aggregated that they may be subject to the spurious effects of data pooling. In other words there may be other variables on which the loss rates depend that are hidden in the agregate figures. You'd have to look at loss rates averaged over missions with similar profiles for squadrons with similar skill levels to have a fair comparasion.

k5054
12-17-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mood of the topic. posted Fri December 17 2004 11:06
k5054:
It's hard to be sure how to interpret the figures as they are so aggregated that they may be subject to the spurious effects of data pooling. In other words there may be other variables on which the loss rates depend that are hidden in the agregate figures. You'd have to look at loss rates averaged over missions with similar profiles for squadrons with similar skill levels to have a fair comparasion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's true. But I've seen loss rates for same-day actions in 8th AF. Indeed I've compiled them and posted them here previously. They reflect what the more general ones here show. Also most of the rates above are for loss after a hit. This ought to be definitive, no? Or maybe heavy weapons were more able to hit the P-38? That would be a survival factor, and a valid case for criticism. In fact P-38 was a fraction bigger and probably easier to hit, and any hit was likely to hit something vital, the 38 isn't hollow, every surface has some important thing behind it, unlike say the 47.

The stats I posted are not the whole story, but they are enough of the story to suggest the 38 was maybe lacking compared to the other two. There's a lot more in the book I mentioned, but I didn't cherry-pick, I just didn't want to type in the whole chapter.

Korolov
12-17-2004, 02:42 PM
k5054 There might be some folks here who think the P-38 was larger than life; but I think the majority in this thread just want to have some glaring errors fixed with the plane as it's modeled. For example, why should the P-38 and 109 suffer from extreme compression when the P-47 and P-51 suffer none at all?

On RL combat, you could also say the same for the Bf-109. How many of those were lost due to accidents? Combat losses? AAA? Yet most people assert the Bf-109 as a excellent fighter.

My take on it is that the P-38, much like the Bf-109, was a aircraft that required someone with a lot of experience to fly successfully.
With a cost of around $120,000 for every unit, much longer pilot training times, and a longer production time per unit, it's understandable why it wasn't such a great deal, especially with the P-51 availible.

Let's not forget, however, that it was one of the few planes availible at the entry of the US into the war that could match performance of most axis planes on equal footing. In 1942 and into 1943, the P-40 and P-39 were largely the other planes availible, and the P-47 had it's own set of troubles.

I don't think it was some kind of super fighter, but it wasn't a cast iron tree sloth on sleeping pills, either.

k5054
12-17-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't think it was some kind of super fighter, but it wasn't a cast iron tree sloth on sleeping pills, either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just about right, it compares well to contemporaries, if you look at it that way, as a 1939 fighter. But its first victory was scored in the same month as the Mustang's. Lockheed was still fixing it three years after it entered squadron service, and strictly compared with its 1943-4 service contemporaries it was the worst of three.
The loss rate data I posted doesn't tell the whole story, as far as the 8th AF anyway, the P-51 scored victories at six times the rate of the P-38, on a kills/sortie basis.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> On RL combat, you could also say the same for the Bf-109. How many of those were lost due to accidents? Combat losses? AAA? Yet most people assert the Bf-109 as a excellent fighter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, no more than 30,000 109s were lost to all causes, mostly in air combat as opposed to flak.
Yet that old dog scored at least 30,000 kills, around 10,000 more than its nearest rival, and more than, say, all the US kills by all services in all theatres. A one-to-one kills/ac built is a very rare achievement. (Most US fighters got nowhere near that, with just one exception.) 109 has a good claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, based on those stats. I don't think it can have been too hard to fly, can it?

HayateAce
12-17-2004, 04:56 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it was some kind of super fighter, but it wasn't a cast iron tree sloth on sleeping pills, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't think of a better way to describe what it is now. I mentioned earlier (tongue in check) that Korolov would show up with a 10-kill track and ruin the theories being discussed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

It is good to see him posting his views on it. It is interesting to note, that where some see a torque problem, I see none. What I do see is more and more pilots posting their concerns about the excessive gun shake.

If 1C only fixed one thing, it would be nice to see the low alt compressibility removed and proper elevator authority restored. The plane has a great zoom climb but it can only be taken advantage of in very rare circumstances.

Korolov
12-17-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
That's just about right, it compares well to contemporaries, if you look at it that way, as a 1939 fighter. But its first victory was scored in the same month as the Mustang's. Lockheed was still fixing it three years after it entered squadron service, and strictly compared with its 1943-4 service contemporaries it was the worst of three.
The loss rate data I posted doesn't tell the whole story, as far as the 8th AF anyway, the P-51 scored victories at six times the rate of the P-38, on a kills/sortie basis.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the exception that the P-38 couldn't be classed as a 1939 fighter - more like 1942. You don't call the Bf-109 a 1935 fighter, do you?

The first kill of the Lightning I can find was shared with a P-40 on 15 August, 1942. A Fw-200 shot down off the Icelandic coast. But you probably already knew that.

For your victories per sortie counts, lets not forget that many pilots in the ETO flying the P-38 were afraid to use the plane to it's maximum ability. Cold in the cockpit, all sorts of mechanical trouble at altitude, against Luftwaffe pilots that had been in war since 1939 and earlier. By the time the P-51 arrived on the scene in large numbers, there's no doubt that most of the enemies they shot down were not nearly as experienced as those earlier in the war. Additionally, don't forget that the P-38 could not nearly perform as many sorties within a space of time as the P-51.

I also recall the P-51 having a serious wing-shedding problem and very stiff controls at high speed as well; Although that applies to the Lightning too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, no more than 30,000 109s were lost to all causes, mostly in air combat as opposed to flak.
Yet that old dog scored at least 30,000 kills, around 10,000 more than its nearest rival, and more than, say, all the US kills by all services in all theatres. A one-to-one kills/ac built is a very rare achievement. (Most US fighters got nowhere near that, with just one exception.) 109 has a good claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, based on those stats. I don't think it can have been too hard to fly, can it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The amount of accidents recorded for the Bf-109 seem to suggest it was a poor plane to stick inexperienced pilots into - with the narrow track landing gear and nearly uncontrollable torque. I also highly doubt that the Bf-109 shot down 30,000 enemy aircraft. Although I don't deny it wouldn't be possible, given how the soviets deployed many aircraft and the plane was fighting in 1937 and from 1939 to 1945, across multiple fronts. The Fw-190, for example, started it's combat tour in 1942. The 109 is not exactly a good comparison - there were few aircraft which had such a long service life at the time.

One must admit, however, that the P-38 and Bf-109 shared some similar traits. They were both excellent climbers in their respective air forces, with good turning ability (you can argue about the P-38's turning ability all you want - but compared to their contemporaries, they had similar combat turning performance), fast with good armanent. They shared poor control capability at speed, notably poor roll rate, and both were designed for high altitude from the start. For a plane almost 3 times the size of the 109 to match a similar performance envelope is quite a achievement, even if the plane didn't square up well in one theatre.

Overall, I believe in the ETO, the P-47 was the best plane availible at the time, discounting the range problem it had - which would have been corrected with the introduction of the P-47N. But to say that the P-38 was just a flying target for the Luftwaffe in the theatre is pure hogwash - just as much as saying the P-51 "won the war."

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 06:14 PM
k5054 wrote:
"Well, that's true. But I've seen loss rates for same-day actions in 8th AF. Indeed I've compiled them and posted them here previously. They reflect what the more general ones here show"

Taking losses per day might tend to the other extreme, i.e. not be a sufficiently large sample as to be statistically significant.

Since you can't control for all variables you have to look at squadrons flying each type of plane doing similar missions for a reasonably large number of days with similar local numerical balances. It's no mean feat. The only other way you can really make these determinations is by computer simulation (in the sense of automated battles to provide a large statistical sample).

The other issue is what a loss means. It may not mean a plane that has been shot down but simply one that is so badly damaged it is not worth repairing. It would be interesting to see what proportion of P51s, P38s and P47s were counted as a loss after returning. It could be that (hypothetically) 25% of P38s lost to enemy aircraft action were scrapped only after returning but the figure might have been only 10% for the P51. This would mean more pilots returned to active duty.

If you were a military planner you'd need to factor in the cost of the planes, kill rates, relative levels of protection offered to bomber streams, etc, as well.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 06:18 PM
"The amount of accidents recorded for the Bf-109 seem to suggest it was a poor plane to stick inexperienced pilots into"

Accidents counted for a significant portion of the 109s lost. I think it was something like 1 in 3. Some of those would have been ones damaged during combat, but the loss ascribed primarily to an accident. For the F4U scarily as many were lost due to 'other causes' - accidents, engine failures, and the like as to enemy aircraft. So often planes were almost their own worst enemy! The P51 also suffered some issues with accidents initially with the rear fuselage tank. I am not sure what the non combat loss rate of the P38 would have been like. Should be a reasonable plane in terms of flight handling, but rather complex.

Korolov
12-17-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I mentioned earlier (tongue in check) that Korolov would show up with a 10-kill track and ruin the theories being discussed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your wish shall be granted!

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_p38kills10trk.zip

Korolov
12-17-2004, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I am not sure what the non combat loss rate of the P38 would have been like. Should be a reasonable plane in terms of flight handling, but rather complex. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure it would be pretty bad, especially early on. A lot of pilots got killed when a engine failed on takeoff - suddenly you've got more torque than even a single engine plane, and if you weren't fast enough, you got killed. Assuming the plane ran perfectly fine, then I doubt there'd be too many problems.

Aaron_GT
12-18-2004, 01:43 AM
"I'm pretty sure it would be pretty bad, especially early on. A lot of pilots got killed when a engine failed on takeoff -"

Good point. With both engines working it should be a bit more stable and easier than the likes of a P51 or P40, though, in most situations. Just more prone to something going wrong due to the number of additional systems that could fail even if the MTBF is the same per system.

WWMaxGunz
12-18-2004, 02:49 AM
I keep reading about what in the sim this plane will do and that plane will do
as opposed to the same in reality. Please add at least "when used properly" or
even "improperly". The IL2 series (not exclusively) is good enough that it is
not even near automatic that anyone will get close to the best out of a plane
just by flying along decently let alone actually using it the best in virtual
combat.

I know that people try their best, but one measure of realism is that most
people will not be able to get the best out because... that is the reality.

If one player can do so well with the P-38 and it is not a loser flying brick
to that person (even if they think it can stand improvement) then those who
say it is should stop and try different things. They will improve themselves.

k5054
12-18-2004, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For your victories per sortie counts, lets not forget that many pilots in the ETO flying the P-38 were afraid to use the plane to it's maximum ability. Cold in the cockpit, all sorts of mechanical trouble at altitude, against Luftwaffe pilots that had been in war since 1939 and earlier. By the time the P-51 arrived on the scene in large numbers, there's no doubt that most of the enemies they shot down were not nearly as experienced as those earlier in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first Mustang (allison, RAF, Dieppe) kill was on Aug 19 1942, four days after the first P-38 kill. P-38s were in nominal squadron service in 1941 though.

There is no substance to the idea that the p-38 held the line until the Mustangs arrived, at least in the 8th AF context. The 38s were declared operational the day after the Schweinfurt disaster. The bombers were not really ready to go again into germany for a while. IIRC the first 38 mission was 1st Nov, the first P-51 mission was early december. Six weeks in which the bomber force was rebuilding.
The P-51 group involved was not even supposed to be a long range escort outfit for B-17s, they were 9th AF. They were also rookies, they had not been in action before. They immediately showed an ability to score more kills than the P-38, although the 51 also had its teething troubles.
The stats I was referring to are for Big Week, a whole week in which multiple ops were mounted,
I'll try to sum it up here later, but I have data for big week and also may 44 when there were a lot more 51s. The kill/loss rates are consistent.


Losses are true losses in the stats I quoted. I wish I had the original study rather than quotes from it, but the intention of the study was exactly to determine which planes did not come back, not which ones were scrapped for damage.

Did the 109 shoot down 30,000 enemy aircraft?
Well, somebody had to, the LWs enemies lost around (I can't verify these figures, they are low side estimates) 50,000+ (soviet) and 20,000+ (western allies) in the war. Allowing for flak, and allowing that 109 scored way more than 190, and that the 110 is a relatively minor player (although it probably had more kills than P-51), the 30,000 is a reasonable guess. Maybe someone with more LW knowledge than I can add something.

k5054
12-18-2004, 05:17 AM
As promised, some 8th AF stats. Here is the all-important Big Week, very historically important, and the total for May 1944, probably more typical for mision rate, and the last month before a significant amount of ground attack screws up the figures. I'm pretty sure march and april would show similar ratios.


Here's the kill/loss data for Big Week, 20-25 Feb 1944

Eighth AF strengths: 2 groups P-38 (55,20) 2 P-51 (354,357) 11 P-47.

These results are almost entirely air combat in the escort role, three P-47 lost to flak are the only exceptions I know of. Kills are 'claimed confirmed'.



P-47. 2594 sorties 137 kills, 16 losses

Sorties/kill 18.9
sorties/loss 162
Kills/loss 8.6



P-38. 384 sorties, 10 kills, 5 losses

Sorties/kill 38.4
sorties/loss 76.8
Kills/loss 2


P-51. 359 sorties, 66 kills, 11 losses

Sorties/kill 5.4
sorties/loss 32.6
Kills/loss 6.6


Here's the whole month of May 44, aircraft strengths more evenly matched
21 missions flown during the month


P-47. 4240 sorties 115 kills, 38 losses

Sorties/kill 36.9
sorties/loss 116
Kills/loss 3



P-38. 3053 sorties, 29 kills, 36 losses

Sorties/kill 105
sorties/loss 85
Kills/loss 0.8


P-51. 5807 sorties, 332.5 kills, 90 losses

Sorties/kill 17.5
sorties/loss 64.5
Kills/loss 3.7

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 06:23 AM
p38 does give u protection from engine failure, and stuff cos its got 2 vs 1.

that doesnt matter in fb...

imo fb p38 problems are
gunshake/rudder shake (p38 has a fair amount of side area tho)
slow roll
stall/spin of doom
stiff elivater
zoomclimb
acceloration
compressablility
torque stuff
(some are RL p38 problems)

to me, a p38 is a flying coffin, a good p38 pilot is very rare...
id do better in any other plane, probably

anything close to p38 in performance, and its very tough fight leading to death, for me and most p38s i see online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

k5054
12-18-2004, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>p38 does give u protection from engine failure, and stuff cos its got 2 vs 1. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A while ago IIRC an FAA study showed some light twins in private hands were just as dangerous or more in event of an engine failure than singles.

2 vs 1 gives twice the chance of engine failure, and as the P-38s engines went round 'the wrong way' they were worse on one engine than they needed to be. The real impact for the 38 in the ETO was that you'd have to fly it back over hundreds of miles of defended airspace as a lame duck. Most of them did not make it home. Maybe it was better in the PTO where the targets were islands (in the sea or in the jungle) and the long flight home was at least unopposed. Anyhow, the stats show that the second engine did not in real life make much difference to the loss rate.

ZG77_Nagual
12-18-2004, 07:50 AM
FYI - I like this plane quite a bit in the simm. Offline it is tough against 8 k4s set to ace - but pretty easy against all other types. For some reason the K4s fly smarter than the other AI - they separate into two groups - one climbs while the other engages. Online is more difficult - but it seems to have been improved since the patch and I haven't had a chance to fly it online in quite awhile.

Korolov
12-18-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
There is no substance to the idea that the p-38 held the line until the Mustangs arrived, at least in the 8th AF context. The 38s were declared operational the day after the Schweinfurt disaster. The bombers were not really ready to go again into germany for a while. IIRC the first 38 mission was 1st Nov, the first P-51 mission was early december. Six weeks in which the bomber force was rebuilding.
The P-51 group involved was not even supposed to be a long range escort outfit for B-17s, they were 9th AF. They were also rookies, they had not been in action before. They immediately showed an ability to score more kills than the P-38, although the 51 also had its teething troubles.
The stats I was referring to are for Big Week, a whole week in which multiple ops were mounted,
I'll try to sum it up here later, but I have data for big week and also may 44 when there were a lot more 51s. The kill/loss rates are consistent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note that I wasn't intending to mean the P-38 shot down EVERYONE and EVERYTHING in the ETO before the P-51 arrived; just that by it's arrival, in force (I don't really include the P-51B in '43 - more like May '44, which seems to be the best comparison time) much of the Luftwaffe's best was having a hard enough time as it was. 11 P-47 groups is definately going to wither down what remained of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did the 109 shoot down 30,000 enemy aircraft?
Well, somebody had to, the LWs enemies lost around (I can't verify these figures, they are low side estimates) 50,000+ (soviet) and 20,000+ (western allies) in the war. Allowing for flak, and allowing that 109 scored way more than 190, and that the 110 is a relatively minor player (although it probably had more kills than P-51), the 30,000 is a reasonable guess. Maybe someone with more LW knowledge than I can add something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allowing that the 109 killed 30,000 enemy aircraft, as you suggest, leaves the 190 for 20,000 downed and the 110 for 20,000 downed. Or if you want to figure it more accurately, take away 5,000 from the 110s and give them to various bomber kills. That means that the 110 killed 15,000 - and, with assumption - losing every 110, means 6,000 110s lost. That means that the 110 killed more than 2 to 1 and the Fw-190 was 1 to 1.

I highly doubt those figures. The losses appear accurate, but the kill count for the 109 is beyond belief. It wasn't a super plane either, you know.

So if we look at it FAR more accurately, and assume that the majority of the Soviet and Allied losses were due to flak, lets say the Bf-109 destroyed maybe 15,000. That sounds reasonable enough. The Fw-190, 7 to 10,000, perhaps. Bf-110 not destroying more than 5,000. Maybe 2,000 or thereabouts for bomber kills. Those kill counts make a lot more sense when looking at the grand scheme of things; especially since flak caused far more losses than ATA combat could ever hope to.

Korolov
12-18-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
As promised, some 8th AF stats. Here is the all-important Big Week, very historically important, and the total for May 1944, probably more typical for mision rate, and the last month before a significant amount of ground attack screws up the figures. I'm pretty sure march and april would show similar ratios.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the figures! That's kind of what I expected for the P-38 in the ETO. Do you have any figures for the MTO?

OldMan____
12-18-2004, 02:42 PM
dammm that Korolov track deserved a LW respose :P

but maximum number of ACE p38 I managed to fight in a 190 in same conditions is 8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Korolov
12-18-2004, 03:19 PM
Try it in a 109 - the trick is to keep very very high. The 190 just can't make that kind of prop hang like the P-38.

OldMan____
12-18-2004, 05:15 PM
I know the idea behind it. But thw 109 is not a plane anyone underconsider here. The FW is $!@##$%&* on the eyes of some here (and I know it isn´t)

Using carefully the pitch control to avoid fliping you can hang wiht a 190 (not as a 109 or yak does..but much more most people beleive it can do)... but needs so much concentration that you loose track of fight. Think if I had a FF joystick maybe It could be easier

WOLFMondo
12-18-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

imo fb p38 problems are
gunshake/rudder shake (p38 has a fair amount of side area tho)
slow roll
stall/spin of doom
stiff elivater
zoomclimb
acceloration
compressablility
torque stuff
(some are RL p38 problems)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't agree with some of those points, the roll is very good at higher speeds and it has notable acceleration and zoom climb and does a neat helicopter impression when it hangs on its props. The gun shake seems to only shake the head of the pilot, the gunsight remains on target pretty much and I've never once got it into a spin I haven't been able to get it out of with a little altitude.

I think the P38 doesn't fare to well online because people don't use the tactics the real life pilots used. I see lone P38's, sometimes loosly flying with a Spit or P51 and not complementing each other. I can't remember the last time I saw 2 P38's together online flying together and fighting together.

Aaron_GT
12-18-2004, 06:02 PM
k5054 wrote:
" The real impact for the 38 in the ETO was that you'd have to fly it back over hundreds of miles of defended airspace as a lame duck. Most of them did not make it home."

In its original design role it would be flying over home territory, though, as an intercept fighter.

Looking at the loss per sortie rates you quoted above, the P38 seems to be twice as safe as the P51 based on the very broad statistics (see the caveats I mentioned in previous posts) but less safe than the P47.

Willey
12-18-2004, 06:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Korolov
12-18-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I know the idea behind it. But thw 109 is not a plane anyone underconsider here. The FW is $!@##$%&* on the eyes of some here (and I know it isn´t)

Using carefully the pitch control to avoid fliping you can hang wiht a 190 (not as a 109 or yak does..but much more most people beleive it can do)... but needs so much concentration that you loose track of fight. Think if I had a FF joystick maybe It could be easier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's difficult to pull off with later Fw-190 models (with the exception of the Dora) - the Fw-190A-4 however, performs beatifully against 10 Ace P-38Ls. I had 3 assisting 190s, but they got wasted in short order. Nonetheless, they took out 2 of the 10, and the remaining 8 I handled myself.

Korolov
12-18-2004, 07:12 PM
OldMan - Just for you:

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_a9kills9trk.zip

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-18-2004, 07:27 PM
Korolov - it ain't nothin if you got wingmen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov
12-18-2004, 08:01 PM
It's how you fly the Fw-190...

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

GR142-Pipper
12-19-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh my.. This may be a first for me, I hope I am not getting ill.

I totally agree with Pipper. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you aren't feeling well after all since I didn't post on this subject http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-19-2004, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
In terms of using the P-38 in FB/PF, the only option you have is to learn how to use it as is. Much as we'd like to change characteristics of certain aircraft modeled, it takes a lot of evidence to sway 1C's point of view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One wonders. As an aside to the P-38 discussion, it's interesting that their points of view were swayed quite a bit in the cases of the F4U and F6F...three significant changes to both aircraft in the period of about 3 weeks.

GR142-Pipper

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 04:26 AM
i just took up the f6f's and omg...i thought i was in the v1.0 slug jug. not only cant this pos get or keep any speed, it climbs about as fast as a kite in a 5mph breeze. u'd be better off in a p-38 than bein in a slugcat.

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 05:59 AM
I repeat my toghts.. I think the main reason why p38 is seen as just a target online is because it is BIG!! damm big.. its 3 times easier to hit a p38 than a p51, so even moderate marksmanship is enough to hit them whenever they get under 300 m.

At least that is the only reason why I choose p38 as the target when there is one available.

They are damm fast at medium speed combat and usually can outrun you in the speed re-take after hard moves. If they avoid get cought by higher alt enemies (from whom they cannot outrun) they are very tough targets to reach.

And korolov, nice track. My fighting is not that different from yours.. but you seem to be much better at avoiding someone getting at your tail than me (my attack is good..need to improve my defense :P).

Also noticed you usually keep under military power and not deploy rad. (I usually generate much more heat than you)

k5054
12-19-2004, 06:16 AM
I'm interested in the topic of how many a/c the 109 shot down , but it has no place here, so I'm going to open it in general discussion with some quotes from this thread. All contributions welcome.

I don't have sortie data for the P-38 in the MTO, the kills however were far higher, the losses less. There is also a strong factor of Italian AF planes, bombers and transport which made things easier there, which I can't get a handle on. Nothing about that theatre makes it likely that any clear comparisons can be made, but the P-38 seems to have done pretty well.

HayateAce
12-19-2004, 06:30 AM
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake.

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pfff...


I see everything as jsut a target when it is under me.. no amtter if it is P38, p51, spitfire etc.. and I am pretty dure that is true for everyone else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Funny I almost NEVER saw a p38 above me. Then people ask why they are shot down in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BSS_CUDA
12-19-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then your not flying it right. dont blame the aircraft for your lack of skills with it. my wingman and I used to fly 51's almost exclusively, but recently we started fly 38's I got smacked at first then I watch what Koro did in his tactics ( Thx Korolov )and we started flying in a high yo-yo I have yet to meet a 109 or a 190 that can stay with you "if" you have the altitude at the start of the engagement. we easily get 5-6-7 kills in a hop. if there is one thing I do not like about it is the stupid flat spins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif they just piss me off. but they are comming fewer and farther between as I fly it more. it has a good climb, good roll, Great firepower and very concentrated, and will stand ot its tail like a kangaroo. its a good plane and the more I fly it the more I like it. compressability doesnt happen when I fly because I dont let it. besides with the L WHO CARES,hit the brakes and a little combat flap and she comes around very fast. there is no problems with the 38 just problems with the pilots flying her

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 07:55 AM
why not post a track of how u fly it ace...or even better...fly on korlov's wing and see how many u frag with him. i'm sure u'd be up to that. i've flown with him, and his bandits are not a walk in the park. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then your not flying it right. dont blame the aircraft for your lack of skills with it. my wingman and I used to fly 51's almost exclusively, but recently we started fly 38's I got smacked at first then I watch what Koro did in his tactics ( Thx Korolov )and we started flying in a high yo-yo I have yet to meet a 109 or a 190 that can stay with you "if" you have the altitude at the start of the engagement. we easily get 5-6-7 kills in a hop. if there is one thing I do not like about it is the stupid flat spins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif they just piss me off. but they are comming fewer and farther between as I fly it more. it has a good climb, good roll, Great firepower and very concentrated, and will stand ot its tail like a kangaroo. its a good plane and the more I fly it the more I like it. compressability doesnt happen when I fly because I dont let it. besides with the L WHO CARES,hit the brakes and a little combat flap and she comes around very fast. there is no problems with the 38 just problems with the pilots flying her <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bss_cuda has it nailed to a T. give him a plane that he normally dont fly, and before too long, he'll figure that crate out. bss has always stressed proper wingmanship all the way back to the days of cfs2. in that arena, u wouldnt be able to lay gloves on him. up here, if u do manage to get behind him, u better make it snappy cuz his wing is not far behind u. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-19-2004, 09:11 AM
I just built myself a nice 10 v 1 for the p38 - 4 n1k1s, 4 j2ms and 2 ki84s (all 'ace'). I fly vs 8 and win about 90% of the time for practice - but that third group does ads an exponential element of difficulty and you have to be alot more disciplined with e - also changing angles frequently. Pretty interesting - thanks for the idea! I still don't agree about the gun shake issue - Ijust don't see it.

RE- the 190 - the ONLY problem that plane has is the gunsight - offline its cake against pretty much everything - as long as you can hit them.

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 09:26 AM
mebby u should throw in some a6m5b's...they act like they have a 109 anti-gravity hoverbrake

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 10:29 AM
The point is Hayate want p38 to turn like an Yak, to shoot like a 190A8, to climb like a K4, to run like a Me262, to sustain damage like p47 and to be as beautifull as the corsair.. all at same time while using only a single engine.


sursprise.. that WON'T happen!!!

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 10:33 AM
by the way.. just got shot down 3 times in a row by the same P38 in WC (was in a A9 myself). Everytime we got to a vertical slow transition.. he managed to get me (the 190 takes about twice the time to finish the top flip and recover control).

arrg.. when the p38 is above me I fear it more than I fear a P51 or spit.

ZG77_Nagual
12-19-2004, 10:59 AM
My scenario is in the'J' by the way. You can do alot with the p38- particularly if you are willing to employ a little trim.
The zeros are just lunch offline - they can come around very fast and are unbeatable in a slow turnfight - but in my offline scenarios they are mostly decoration - as long as I can keep them away from the faster fighters - which is not hard - it's really just a matter of staying away from them until you finish off the real threats.

HayateAce
12-19-2004, 11:57 AM
Neato Oldman.

Terrific posting, no really.

Yes I asked for all those things. Go ahead and pull up those posts where I asked for those specific things........

I'm waiting.

For you cuda, so you can hold your mouth a certain way, do some contortions and get some kills in the P38 IF the sun, moon and stars are aligned just right and the outside temp is exactly 52 degrees.

I'm happy for you, but the point remains that the P38 has some problems that could and should be fixed.

Korolov
12-19-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I don't have sortie data for the P-38 in the MTO, the kills however were far higher, the losses less. There is also a strong factor of Italian AF planes, bombers and transport which made things easier there, which I can't get a handle on. Nothing about that theatre makes it likely that any clear comparisons can be made, but the P-38 seems to have done pretty well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the dryer and warmer climate is probably the biggest factor for the P-38's success in the MTO. They weren't flying as high as P-38s in the ETO, and they had a lot more opponents to tangle with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I repeat my toghts.. I think the main reason why p38 is seen as just a target online is because it is BIG!! damm big.. its 3 times easier to hit a p38 than a p51, so even moderate marksmanship is enough to hit them whenever they get under 300 m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty much the size of it (literally) - the P-38 is much easier to see and identify, and is about the size of a medium bomber, give or take a few meters. When somebody shows up on the scene with a Mk108, you had better keep your distance. But that's not any different than any other plane, and IMO, the quad MG151 setup from the late 190s is a lot more dangerous.

HayateAce - provide me with a track of you flying the P-38; doesn't matter where or how - in QMB against AI, or flying online. There are problems with the plane, but you make it seem like it's unflyable! They said the same about the P-47 in 1.0-1.22, and the same about the 190 in IL-2. As before, I believe it only comes down to how it's flown.

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Neato Oldman.

Terrific posting, no really.

Yes I asked for all those things. Go ahead and pull up those posts where I asked for those specific things........

I'm waiting.

For you cuda, so you can hold your mouth a certain way, do some contortions and get some kills in the P38 IF the sun, moon and stars are aligned just right and the outside temp is exactly 52 degrees.

I'm happy for you, but the point remains that the P38 has some problems that could and should be fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


terrific posting mine? Show us one post of yours that is usefull...

did you ever heard about hyperbolic expressions? Or in your LW basshing live you had no time to learn complex communication? I am sure you know it since everytime you talk about a plane you use the same kind of exageration.


Did I said you WROTE you wanted that? Make us a favor and forget PC games for some time... maybe you will learn to understand what others want to say and will learn to pass your toughts without creating a flame war at every attempt of communication you make.

If you did not got yeat.. I donp´t wanna fight.. just making a reflex of what you do here.. exagerate everything.

BSS_CUDA
12-19-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Neato Oldman.


For you cuda, so you can hold your mouth a certain way, do some contortions and get some kills in the P38 IF the sun, moon and stars are aligned just right and the outside temp is exactly 52 degrees.

I'm happy for you, but the point remains that the P38 has some problems that could and should be fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

first off dont blame me or any other pilot for your woefull 38 skills, as has been said TIME &TIME again "its not the plane its the pilot" just because your a flying mk108 magnet doesnt mean the rest of us will be. as for your point that the FM has problems then PROVE IT give us hard facts, not your speculation. also there is not a plane in the game that someone doesnt have some kind of beef with the FM, so get over it quit your whinning and adjust, its the way the game is and until you realise that your gonna spend alot of time hitting the respawn button. I think the oldman hit the nail on the head with your wants of the 38 FM

NorrisMcWhirter
12-19-2004, 03:43 PM
Hi,

Koro: in the track, what level was the AI? It looked like rookie to me (certainly less than vet because they didn't attempt head on shots).

I tried repeating your ding **** but with 8 (because my missus wanted to go to the pub) and I downed all 8 with the P38L (and I never fly it).

What surprised me, both in your track and in my little caper, was how few hits it took to destroy the opponents. Whoever says the P38 gunnery (or, more importantly, the .50s) is poor is talking out of their ****.

Cheers,
Norris

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 04:05 PM
norris, the 38 was designed to put 5 guns in a 30" circle. fire all coming from the nose into a basically superconcentrated cone that would rip to shreds anything caught in it. the way the guns were mounted eliminated convergance problems, and with the 50's flat trajectory, long range was possible and still have a lethal cone of fire. and yea, it doesnt take much with good aim to carve anything up like a turkey.

Korolov
12-19-2004, 04:06 PM
In the P-38 track, the AI was set to average. In the 190 track, AI was Ace.

NorrisMcWhirter
12-19-2004, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
norris, the 38 was designed to put 5 guns in a 30" circle. fire all coming from the nose into a basically superconcentrated cone that would rip to shreds anything caught in it. the way the guns were mounted eliminated convergance problems, and with the 50's flat trajectory, long range was possible and still have a lethal cone of fire. and yea, it doesnt take much with good aim to carve anything up like a turkey. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was shooting from around 200m. .50s would set things on fire..cannon would cause structural failure...consistently.

Cheers,
Norris

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 04:30 PM
at that range...he's toast. just add butter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
In the P-38 track, the AI was set to average. In the 190 track, AI was Ace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeahhh FW rulez http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

anyway.. I tryed using a p38J against 8 Ace FW190A8.. pretty hard..but in the third attempt I made it.

Ai may be crude.. but 8 or 10 of it are not that easy to beat. So I am pretty confident to say that any plane that you manage to use to defeat 10 ace AI is not a DUCK, may not be the best..but not very bad.

For sure the thing tha anoy most on p38 is compressbility. And I preffer the J due to extra speed.

Korolov
12-19-2004, 04:50 PM
An additional track for you guys to analize -

4 109K
4 190A8
2 110G

All set to Ace AI - against me, alone, in P-38L with 25% fuel. It wasn't easy, but eventually I pulled it off.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_p38ace10trk.zip

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
An additional track for you guys to analize -

4 109K
4 190A8
2 110G

All set to Ace AI - against me, alone, in P-38L with 25% fuel. It wasn't easy, but eventually I pulled it off.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_p38ace10trk.zip <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOOL think we made korolov spend whole sunday at quick mission .. :P

Korolov
12-19-2004, 05:00 PM
Actually, about 35 minutes of my time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HayateAce
12-19-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA: Some stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to see you can make judgements on someone's skill level via ESP. For all you know I can outfly you in it. And again with the lies about what I am asking for on the P38.

I challenge you or the oldman where I ask for any of what you have tossed out: "p38 to turn like an Yak, to shoot like a 190A8, to climb like a K4, to run like a Me262, to sustain damage like p47 and to be as beautifull as the corsair.. all at same time while using only a single engine."

If either one of you would bother to know what's going on, you would know I've called out two issues:

1 - Low altitude compressibility confused with high speed control authority. Show me a doc that says the P38 became a brick like the 109 at high speed.

2 - Gun/headshake problem - The 20mm hispano bobs your head around as much or more than the Mk108.

And there you have what I have been bringing up. Nice try to throw in some junk though.

Koro, I have 6 or so tracks of my P38J taking out 4 ace 1943 zeros. I did it with relative ease because of ai stupidity and a well planned zoom climb. I kept it very fast.

Again, Ive never posted one thing about turn, top speed or anything else. Just the 2 issues I've mentioned.

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 05:13 PM
Hayate.. I dont give even a roten egg for your chalange.. you don´t deserve it. Answering that, proved that you don´t understand proper communication.

Just trying again... that was an EXAGERATION.. just like the ones you do every word you type.


Korolov, just watched... godlike! But you almost died at very beggining.. a mk108 shell scrathed ink from your bird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Still amazed how you manage to keep every other plane away of you... not single time Ai locked on your 6. I think I do not have so much enviroment perception.

Korolov
12-19-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Koro, I have 6 or so tracks of my P38J taking out 4 ace 1943 zeros. I did it with relative ease because of ai stupidity and a well planned zoom climb. I kept it very fast.

Again, Ive never posted one thing about turn, top speed or anything else. Just the 2 issues I've mentioned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ought to try matching against 10 Ace AI opponents, if only for the challenge alone. I only barely pulled off in my track.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Korolov, just watched... godlike! But you almost died at very beggining.. a mk108 shell scrathed ink from your bird
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MG131s got even closer! I think I took a couple of those in the left tailboom... Was fortunate enough to have the Mk108s miss by nanometers. The biggest problem were the 109Ks, but once they were down, the 190s and 110s were easily defeated provided they tried to follow a low speed climb upward. Most of the time though, they'd just roll and dive, which I naturally couldn't follow.

BSS_CUDA
12-19-2004, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA: Some stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



If either one of you would bother to know what's going on, you would know I've called out two issues:

1 - Low altitude compressibility confused with high speed control authority. Show me a doc that says the P38 became a brick like the 109 at high speed.

2 - Gun/headshake problem - The 20mm hispano bobs your head around as much or more than the Mk108.

And there you have what I have been bringing up. Nice try to throw in some junk though.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
{EDIT} I decieided its not worth the effort http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

VF-29_Sandman
12-19-2004, 06:38 PM
it's obvious that koro has mastered this bird in both manuverability and gunnery. very nice. 1 mistake on their part and they were mincemeat. the ace ai's are alot tougher than they used to be, so koro shows that a properly flown 38 is a dangerous threat.

HayateAce
12-19-2004, 07:57 PM
Rgrt Koro, I will start increasing the numbers of opponents.

Well Oldman and cuda, I see you have nothing to back up your claims that the P38 is correct as-is. No docs, nothing.

Just a couple of "oh I won't even bother" posts.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BSS_CUDA
12-19-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Rgrt Koro, I will start increasing the numbers of opponents.

Well Oldman and cuda, I see you have nothing to back up your claims that the P38 is correct as-is. No docs, nothing.

Just a couple of "oh I won't even bother" posts.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. ya see the beauty of it is Hayate is that you have no documentation to prove its wrong, and let me let you in on a little secret, Oleg will not change it till you provide the proof. SO as I started to say in my last post before I thought better of it. STFU and learn to fly it the way it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif of course you could continue with your line of whining http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif as I suppose you will, and as the 38 suits me just fine and I have no problems with it. I hope they leave it just the way it is just to piss you off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 10:04 PM
koro, what game version that track from?
u fly for abit, then start snipping at air...
ive got 302bm

OldMan____
12-20-2004, 02:45 AM
302bm have some weird issues with TRK files... even my files sometimes get unsicronized. Usually I reboot the machine and is everything OK.


PS. I tryed to push teh chalange by facing 10x La7 in a p38.. not surprised I became dead meat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

VVS-Manuc
12-20-2004, 04:03 AM
&gt;&gt;We give the best effience of elevator on High speed for P-51...&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;In some ways P-38 in our sim flyes better than should in real...&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;P-47 now do better rollrate than should on low speeds...&gt;&gt;

all said by Oleg Maddox in this forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

OldMan____
12-20-2004, 04:24 AM
Cant understand why he does that. Why not make planes fly as they should? Send all that " the legend of XXX plane" to hell ?

He did that with FW for example... it is damm difficult to make it be effective as the legend tells.. why.. because legends are exagerated.. in ALL PLANES!!!

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. The P-38 is nothing but a grape to all but inexperienced opponents. Other than a drive by, there is no flight regime in which this aircraft excels. None. Unfortunately, all this chatter to the contrary doesn't change the fact that the Lightning is easy pickens. A flight of two just means two Lightning kills.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P38 is seen as a target, because that's all it is. Don't need a whole 5 paragraphs to try to explain it away.

Fix the low alt compressibility and overdone headshake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then your not flying it right. dont blame the aircraft for your lack of skills with it. my wingman and I used to fly 51's almost exclusively, but recently we started fly 38's I got smacked at first then I watch what Koro did in his tactics ( Thx Korolov )and we started flying in a high yo-yo I have yet to meet a 109 or a 190 that can stay with you "if" you have the altitude at the start of the engagement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's akin to saying, "If you don't sin, you go to heaven." Heck, everybody knows that. The problem with the P-38 (as currently modeled) is that the engagement envelope is fairly limited in which to both prosecute an attack and effect an escape. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>we easily get 5-6-7 kills in a hop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know the circumstances on the servers you're talking about or if you're talking about off-line play, but this kind of kill/sortie rate is simply hard to believe. None of even the more experienced pilots (me included) achieve this on other than a fluke basis. Again, I don't know the specific circumstances that you're referring to so your explanation is welcome.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
first off dont blame me or any other pilot for your woefull 38 skills, as has been said TIME &TIME again "its not the plane its the pilot" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HayateAce didn't blame you or anyone else for anything. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>just because your a flying mk108 magnet doesnt mean the rest of us will be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> P-38 drivers are likely to be if they engage in anything but a drive-by against experienced pilots...and even then it's iffy. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>as for your point that the FM has problems then PROVE IT give us hard facts, not your speculation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Christ, it's obvious. Take a P-38 for a flight and watch the conditions where the controls tighten. We're not talking about the edge of the flight envelope here...it's right in the middle of the sweet spot. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> also there is not a plane in the game that someone doesnt have some kind of beef with the FM, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's probably true but in the case of the P-38 the current errors are glaring and render the plane just about useless for air-to-air work. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so get over it quit your whinning and adjust, its the way the game is and until you realise that your gonna spend alot of time hitting the respawn button. I think the oldman hit the nail on the head with your wants of the 38 FM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think he wants that at all. The issues that he has raised are legitimate and need to be addressed. No more, no less.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
12-20-2004, 06:26 AM
So defend a poitn of view.. what you 2 do here does not convince anyone. I have very few problems with the p38 and from all USAAF planes, online is the one I manage to do best, very close to the p51.


saying that it is only a target is teh kind of statement that make you 2 loose all credbility. Since Korolov and many other (me sometimes) included manage to do well on it.


Most bashing on p38 comes from people that engage in circle fight at first chance (not saying its your case). just watch Korolovs last track.. try to do the same with a p51 or bf109 and say to me that is easy to do it with them.

It MAY be too hard.. OK.. grant that.. but that is also true with FW190 and P47.

But it IS possible to make some veryu effective fighting with it.

Not excel at any point? And about p51? it is not the best at ANY atribute..but is pretty good on average.

Same for p38.. less maneuverabe but more firepower and looks more beautiful. At high speed it has a very good turn (450-500 kph) and you only have to worry in not passing 600 kph without full trim up.

BSS_CUDA
12-20-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:I don't know the circumstances on the servers you're talking about or if you're talking about off-line play, but this kind of kill/sortie rate is simply hard to believe. None of even the more experienced pilots (me included) achieve this on other than a fluke basis. Again, I don't know the specific circumstances that you're referring to so your explanation is welcome.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the server was Warclouds WF, last night I flew for about 30 minutes with my wingman before he had to leave, then I flew for another 1.5 hours before I had to shut it down and get some sleep ( work calls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) I flew only the 38 I had 750 points ( one of them an HE-111 ) I had 2 bailouts and got Pilot killed 1 time and 1 collision death, its not like I fly the Newbie servers. the 38 is just like any other plane in the game. if you fly it wrong you are gonna get whacked.

NorrisMcWhirter
12-20-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the 38 is just like any other plane in the game. if you fly it wrong you are gonna get whacked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen

Cheers,
Norris

ZG77_Nagual
12-20-2004, 10:59 AM
I have gobs of tracks vs eight ace a/c all by my lonesome in the J - a few online tracks vs 109s and 190s as well. I've made a couple with the 1 v10 ace scenario (4 n1k1,4j2m,2ki84) but I'm trying to get one that has a nice variety of maneuvers. One of the tracks is pretty boring - I get all ten but have to fly carefully because the second kill - a j2m - detonates right in front of me and the rest of the track I'm flying with reduced lift on my left wing. Got em all but it takes awhile. Anyway - when I get one thats concise and interesting enough I'll post it.
To my mind the only performance question I really have concerns low speed turn - lots of anecdotal evidence that the 38 would outturn the 109 slow - but this is not quite true in game. Otherwise it seems pretty good - maybe a tad slow on the deck. I'm more convinced than ever the gun shake is just rudder oscillation

GR142_Astro
12-20-2004, 11:06 AM
Nagual, you don't see the headshake on the hispano?

I can do a basically hands-off pass on a target and it bobs me wee head around something fierce. Geez I hope this isn't another Athlon system only problem or some dang thing.

Good to see one or 2 others have noticed the head/gunshake. At the same time, I've not noticed any torque issues.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
So defend a poitn of view.. what you 2 do here does not convince anyone. I have very few problems with the p38 and from all USAAF planes, online is the one I manage to do best, very close to the p51.


saying that it is only a target is teh kind of statement that make you 2 loose all credbility. Since Korolov and many other (me sometimes) included manage to do well on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think it's a matter of anyone losing credibility; it's simply that we have different views on this aircraft. Enjoy the P-38.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 02:19 PM
I have an AMD system and don't see any excessive head shake.

ZG77_Nagual
12-20-2004, 03:10 PM
Pipper - some days are better than others but I've flown the p38 against some very accomplished pilots online. 1v1 I seldom worry - against a skilled team in late 109s - difficult but not impossible. against 3 or 4 well-flow zeros - not much trouble if I stay fast. I've fought ki84s, k4s, zeros, mustangs and yaks tec. in it - some of which were flown by very good pilots. One particularly good match against a team of 190 drivers - a dora and an a6 I believe. Gave as good or better than I got in general. Since the patches the p38 is much less inclined to enter a spin, and stalls in a more controlled fashion. I almost exclusively fly the J.

On the headshake issue - I usually fire very short bursts but, since oleg tightened up the grouping - I haven't really looked for a shake problem - and haven't seen it in normal fights.I'll check it more closely with the cannon in particular.

The P38 is quite formidable if you know what you're doing. It turns with/better than quite a few a/c under the right circumstances -I'm still sorting some of that out.

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Pipper - some days are better than others but I've flown the p38 against some very accomplished pilots online. 1v1 I seldom worry - against a skilled team in late 109s - difficult but not impossible. against 3 or 4 well-flow zeros - not much trouble if I stay fast.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not saying you haven't. All I'm saying is that your experiences been the polor opposite of my experiences with the aircraft. I've found it half a notch above useless. You've found it otherwise...so, ok. It all depends on what one's definition of "engagement" is.

GR142-Pipper

VF-29_Sandman
12-20-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Pipper - some days are better than others but I've flown the p38 against some very accomplished pilots online. 1v1 I seldom worry - against a skilled team in late 109s - difficult but not impossible. against 3 or 4 well-flow zeros - not much trouble if I stay fast. I've fought ki84s, k4s, zeros, mustangs and yaks tec. in it - some of which were flown by very good pilots. One particularly good match against a team of 190 drivers - a dora and an a6 I believe. Gave as good or better than I got in general. Since the patches the p38 is much less inclined to enter a spin, and stalls in a more controlled fashion. I almost exclusively fly the J.

On the headshake issue - I usually fire very short bursts but, since oleg tightened up the grouping - I haven't really looked for a shake problem - and haven't seen it in normal fights.I'll check it more closely with the cannon in particular.

The P38 is quite formidable if you know what you're doing. It turns with/better than quite a few a/c under the right circumstances -I'm still sorting some of that out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nag, maybe postin some tips of how u fly the 38 might help others. against zero's, speed is life. short bursts, u might not notice headshake. but u probably would in a long burst.

Korolov
12-20-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
koro, what game version that track from?
u fly for abit, then start snipping at air...
ive got 302bm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3.02bm w/ new exe.

OldMan____
12-20-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Pipper - some days are better than others but I've flown the p38 against some very accomplished pilots online. 1v1 I seldom worry - against a skilled team in late 109s - difficult but not impossible. against 3 or 4 well-flow zeros - not much trouble if I stay fast.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not saying you haven't. All I'm saying is that your experiences been the polor opposite of my experiences with the aircraft. I've found it half a notch above useless. You've found it otherwise...so, ok. It all depends on what one's definition of "engagement" is.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly!! That is the whole point here. If engagement for you is only when you chose one target and keep turning and climbing and furballing till you or he is dead , p38 is HORIBLE..as well is the fw190. But if your engagement concept involves fast meneuvering never keeping with same target for more than a couple turns and making at least 600 meters separation before even think on coming back ... than p38 is quite good..as the FW190A

A hint.. if you have a programable joystick.. program a key to full trim up. It will work quite well as a dive recover mechanism even at J model. Not as efficient as L brake.. but along with flap can take you out of any dive other than one that only a p51 or FW190 could come out.

ZG77_Nagual
12-20-2004, 05:57 PM
Not to be contrary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I've done more than a few furballs - with ki84s in particular - in the J (made a point of it for awhile) while not adviseable - it can be done (I was stalking Ki84s - on principal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Dedicated horizontal fights are inadviseable however - it's allways better to bail for speed. It may be my 190 chops serve me well in the 38 - though the 38 has one of the best gunsights in the simm and is a great deflection shooter. I'll try to get a track up that typifies some of my tactics. I've never mapped a key to full trim - but I do have it on a wheel.

VF-29_Sandman
12-20-2004, 07:19 PM
compared to the hellcat, the 38 is a dream. they neutered the hellcat so bad if it's under 20k, it's dogmeat.

OldMan____
12-21-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Not to be contrary http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I've done more than a few furballs - with ki84s in particular - in the J (made a point of it for awhile) while not adviseable - it can be done (I was stalking Ki84s - on principal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Dedicated horizontal fights are inadviseable however - it's allways better to bail for speed. It may be my 190 chops serve me well in the 38 - though the 38 has one of the best gunsights in the simm and is a great deflection shooter. I'll try to get a track up that typifies some of my tactics. I've never mapped a key to full trim - but I do have it on a wheel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

even better if you have it on a weel. But a simple key map is enough.

I don't like the idea of furballing with it since at such close range a bf109 pilot may get too anxious and make one of those nasty " down to stall" turns and make a Mk108 hole in your bomber...err fighter, not bothering if he will be riped a few seconds later by another fighter due to the loss of speed.


I think the same with fw190..whose I fly about 80% of time and can keep alive for whole 100% fuel flight if I am pacient and keep away. Unfortuantely usually I go play online after a hard day of work and have no pacience left http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The thing I hate most on horizontal turn fighting Is that I usually cannot help my fellows down low because they keep turning like mad while a spit is on their tails.

I cannot comment on vs Ki-84 since I NEVER fly pacific theater (usually I leave sever when they switch map to pacific scenario).

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 07:39 AM
Based on my experience - 109s are the best dogfighters period. This may be because they've attracted the most dedicated pilots.

BSS_CUDA
12-21-2004, 08:36 AM
one of the things that still bothers me most about the plane is not the FM but the 50's I still can believe how weak they are even with the 20 I can sit behind a 109 or a 190 and blast holes in them and nothing, last night for example I hit a ta 152 with 9 20's when he finally started to smoke. 3 of thos 20's were in the left wing root, now that combined with the 50's all "supposedly" hitting in a area about 30 inches across it should have been like a buzzsaw and sawed his wing right off, where with the german planes blasting my planes in half with 1-2 shots I need to spend 3 times as long behind a contact to ensure a kill. I usually hit him a few time get him leaking fuel and fly off. sometimes I get a kill msg, but most of the time some other allied plane will come in and finish him off. I've only been flying the 38 serious about 1 month now, but unlike any aircraft I've flown so far, I've found myself looking forward to getting home from work so I can hop on and start chasing the luftwaffe planes, where when I was in the 51's there was some fear of the lufty planes, not because of my skills but because of its glass jaw and wing shred. in the 38 I find myself looking for a fight especially when I have the alt advantage. this plane is a blast to fly. it is very well balanced ( when flown right )the 20 does give it that added punch and I have found that at alt above 20k it will flat outfly any 190, the only advantage they have is to run for the deck. the 38 is faster and turns better at alt then they do. it has a great zoom climb and will stand on its tail. the only thing you really need to watch out for it the flat spin, and it will give you plenty of warning before it does that. it doesnt tip stall even at relativly low speeds. I think that the problem with most of the ppl that have a hard time with this plane like to fly in the horizontal, this is not a Zero or a 109, but in the vertical its a even match with a 109, IMHO I give it 2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 09:39 AM
P38 vs 10 track (http://webpages.charter.net/cmorey/38jv10.zip)

Heres a track of one p38j vs 4 J2m, 4 n1k1 and 2 ki84s - all ai set to ace. 3 of the ai disengage with severe damage - rather than run these down or wait for them to crash I cut the track short - they were all done and the track is 5 meg as it is.

I wanted to showcase some of the 38s strengths. The track opens with a risky maneuver - I let the bad guys pile up behind me without gaining much speed because of an opportunity to take out two j2ms - these things are the bane of this scenario - dedicated climbing rockets they are allways the ones still gaining when everything else has dropped off. I figured I could do it as long as I angled out of the vertical plane of the group - costing them e when they were allready low and, like I said, I wanted to show some of the p38s low speed ability - I tag but do not kill an n1k1 at the end of that pass - but it is getting to risky to stay horizontal. Toward the end I lose my advantage against the remaining n1k1s and have to set a speed record to get it back.

Luftcaca
12-21-2004, 10:36 AM
wow, 10 pages of this ranting about the P-38!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

so anyone noticed just how easily the MG's will jam, on both the J and the L models??

last night, 2 bullets from a Stukas turret and ALL my .50's were jammed, cmon...

VF-2_John_Banks
12-21-2004, 11:04 AM
What i noticed is that the flaps on the P-38 jam like on no other plane. It seems that a little turbulence is enough for the flaps to jam.

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 11:08 AM
I think it's the lightnings acceleration that's got you on the flap issue. I use them alot but they only seem to jam above 250mph or so.

OldMan____
12-21-2004, 11:29 AM
The hispano 20 mm can shot any LW fighter with 2 or 3 hits.. even 1 will do most of time. It is the STRONGGEST weapon in game. Even stronggest than Mk108 due to its much higher speed.

But from what distance where you firing from? late FWs are heavily armored and can sustain alot of fire from long distances (arrives with energy depleted)

BSS_CUDA
12-21-2004, 11:49 AM
no more than .2 out thats what blew me away, I watched hit after hit, maybe was packet loss or lagg? but both pings were around 100

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 01:08 PM
Straight six hits are very unproductive - in general.

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 01:16 PM
"Straight six hits are very unproductive - in general."

You can blow things up with the P38 (even online) from the straight 6, but some deflection works better (goes for all planes).

Gibbage1
12-21-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

P~38 guns not mounted on heavy engine, and airplanes are not rigid objects. Pay Attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This discussion came up long ago, and we exposed P~38 as not having excessive gunshake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No aircraft in WWII had its guns mounted on the engine. That would be very STUPID if it did due to engine vibration and torque twisting the engine. Look at a diagram of any WWII aircraft and you will see the guns are mounted BEHIND the engine.

Also, the P-38's gun mounts are VERY large.

One other thing. The P-38's guns are placed between two counter rotating gyro's to stableize them.

WWMaxGunz
12-21-2004, 03:59 PM
Very interesting about the gyros and mounts, GIB! I guess the gyros must affect the flight
of the plane to some degree as well at least on pitch and yaw changes or starting them?

Can you post any shots of the mounts modelling and main structure? Also any info on how
much strength is added with the stressed skin and light internal bracings if you have that?

OTOH I have seen enough posts about "gunnery" to make a generic gun-whine form:

(my gun) hardly does anything.
(the others) tear me up instantly.
~optional~ (my gun) shakes wildly every shot.
~also optionally~ (the other) fires as a laser.
==please note that at no point is any evidence or qualifiers allowed in this format==

VF-29_Sandman
12-21-2004, 04:53 PM
so do u prefer the J nag or the L? not bad, seems u missed a couple of almost ez shots, but the 38 is hard enough to handle as is besides gettin a shot off.

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 05:28 PM
Roj - did miss a couple easy ones - I have better tracks but I wanted one with some slow stuff and at least one major f up (spin) and recovery. I was getting sick of trying to get the perfect thing together. I like the J's low level speed - but I haven't tested the L lately. Otherwise obviously the L's roll and speedflap thingy. Whats lacking is a good furball .. maybe later http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bull_dog_
12-21-2004, 05:29 PM
I find the Lightnings firepower to be devastating IF you can hold your aim....I also believe it is one of the hardest if not the hardest aircraft to aim steady in due to pitch and inertia modelling not to mention head shake....but the hmg/cannon arrangement is really, really powerful

VF-29_Sandman
12-21-2004, 05:46 PM
the cannon + the 4 guns all together are devastating at close range. and it does seem to have extraordinary long range on the 50 cals. its shooting with the gunsite reticule is the hardest thing. the plane already requires practically pinpoint aiming and leaves little room for error compared to the shotgun effect of wing guns; but if u do get hits, they'll put a load of whoop azz on em.

p1ngu666
12-21-2004, 07:27 PM
hm, il2 is pretty bad now, with lots of swing
p38 shakes really bad (for me anyways)

i did some flying earlier in it to test out my new tft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. g10/14, i did better than i thought, but onwhine im pretty sure id have been shot up completely.

stuka rear gunners are deadly btw, can do more damage to my il2, than i can to it (while im hitting it well) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Gibbage1
12-21-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Very interesting about the gyros and mounts, GIB! I guess the gyros must affect the flight
of the plane to some degree as well at least on pitch and yaw changes or starting them?

Can you post any shots of the mounts modelling and main structure? Also any info on how
much strength is added with the stressed skin and light internal bracings if you have that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to clerify something. The gyro's I spoke about are the two counter rotating props. In an interview with Kelly Johnson, he siad the reason to make the props counter rotating was so they do act like gyro's and make a more stable gun platform.

As for a pic of the gunmount, here you go. I only link it since its EXTREAMLY big and NOT 56K friendly. This is a pic I took of Glacer Gal's gun bay.

http://www.gibbageart.com/chino04/P1010019.JPG

The #3 is one of the mounts to the .50 cal above. The 2nd mount is to the right of the ammo feeder. You can see the hardware in that bay is very sumstantial. You can also see why if you get it in the nose, it WILL hit at least ONE gun/ammo tray if it multiple. That is why you always get your guns damaged. Its packed in there very tight.

VF-29_Sandman
12-21-2004, 08:22 PM
kinda reminds me how tight their building the engine compartments for cars now. to get at certain parts requires 'surgery'. if ur stupid enough to stay behind an enemy bomber at close range, expect the guns to get shot out first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
12-21-2004, 09:01 PM
gunners aim for centre of plane and often hit it.

WWMaxGunz
12-22-2004, 03:54 AM
Yeah Gib, I see a lot of angled and reinforced sheet there as well as maybe some
castings. I don't know the heat treat of it all but with those bends there just
is not much room for angular give of any significance without deforming the sheet
metal and fatiguing it especially at the fasteners.

Some degree of shake, yes. Some degree the gun barrels also flex we know true.
But 10 meters wide at 150 meters range was ridiculous and historic documents
pointed that out as results.

Still the center pod is mounted on wings between the engines and that wing spar
has to have some give doesn't it? That is what cantilever wings are about is
give where total stiffness would not stand up long. I just don't know how much
give for short sections and bet you don't either. But how much could it be given
that the control cables run through there and with much measureable flex, the
control surfaces themselves would never hold still!
As to mass of engine near guns, that pod itself is not an eggshell and engines
are not tank-heavy.

No question about shake to me at all, it is the degree that I see disputed ever.

I think that the old way of modelling gunfire with each gun firing in sequence
at the speed of tasked code, left to right, was a source of error. Great about
the detail of doing everything but impossible to do that way realistic, the
real guns fired all at once evenly and the model of some planes did not, the
P-47 showing the most. Planes that sway when firing maybe still have that? I
guess Oleg should know and maybe with fast enough PC the effect diminishes.

Nice to have detailed models but the more details, the more to get right and
the need to be ever more right. It's like parts to the power of detail and one
error gets multiplied by all it connects to.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2004, 05:29 AM
Gibbage:
There's a lot of stuff in the nose, but how stiff are the horizontal and vertical supports? They look to be box and u shaped hollow members supporting the guns. How stiff are the other parts of the nose structure under the vibration of guns? For simple flight the nose structure of the of a P38 doesn't need to be nearly as strong as that of, say, a Bf109 as there is no engine that needs to be clamped down in there. In most twins (without guns, or without guns in the original design) the nosecap is light. AFAIK they had to add all sorts of additional stiffening on the B25 to take the side mounted guns just to stop them ripping off the side as much as anything.

The only real way to know is to test a real P38 firing or do a full structural analysis of the steel structure (my father-in-law could do this for an office building - maybe he could for a P38).

OldMan____
12-22-2004, 06:07 AM
You don't need counter rotatin propeçers to have gyroscopic effect. Anything rotatin will create it and make the plane a more stable platform.

The 2 propellers only eliminate the torque that was by itself a sourec of imprecision when shooting.

Still a poitn is I doubt the nose egg shell of the p38 is heavier than a 109. The conection between these parts will not transmit completely the impulse, so that part of it will make the nose shake. A solid one piece plane like the p47 would be the most stable platform when shooting since the mpulse of the recoil is applied on a whole mass.

Other things like distance from center of gravity (gun to CG) are important on that stuff.

ZG77_Nagual
12-22-2004, 11:44 AM
Even from 2000 meters out - with a long burst in a vertical dive and convergence set at 200meter the spread never gets wider that the distance between the booms. I just don't see a problem there.

Gibbage1
12-22-2004, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Even from 2000 meters out - with a long burst in a vertical dive and convergence set at 200meter the spread never gets wider that the distance between the booms. I just don't see a problem there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, considering .50 cal's vanish at about 1000M.

I dont think spread is a problem here, but the shaking of your perspective weather it be the cockpit or your virtual head. The only pilot quote I have on cockpit shake when the guns are firing was from the 20MM. The pilot said it felt like a jackhammer and I dont doubt this account. But if you think of the forces involved, it would be a lateral movement back and forth. What you see in IL2 is the gunsight moving up and down.

Watch any video of a .50 cal M2 firing from a 73lb tripod. Then consider that the P-38 is around 16,000lb.

All 4 .50's did not fire at the same time, but was staggered. I think IL2 has them firing at the same time, and that increases recoil 4X more then what it should be.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2004, 04:58 PM
"Watch any video of a .50 cal M2 firing from a 73lb tripod. Then consider that the P-38 is around 16,000lb."

It's more the issue of component relative motion and stiffness, not the overall mass, though. The disturbance of the gross structure due to recoil will be minimal but as Neal pointed out it is possible for the central nacelle to move relative to the engines due to flexion in the wings. It is also possible to have torsional twisting due to the recoil of the guns, although it looks like that was thought of as you can see that the guns are pretty much at the same height as the wings. But it is also possible there there might be distortion in the gun mounts under firing stresses. It would be a complex matter to simulate these stresses, especially under flight conditions, so the game needs to simplify them. I am just not sure that you can easily say that there would or would not be dispersion issues due to the mountings. I think we can safely say that the original dispersion was too high (back before Gibbage and JtD worked on things around 9 or more months ago). I supported that being changed. But just looking at plane mass is too simplistic, that's all.

WWMaxGunz
12-22-2004, 05:28 PM
Pretty sure the gun mounts would be almost part of the central framing structure of
the plane that the pod would be built around, not gun mounts attached to the pod.
I would expect the main spar to be the heavy there with mounts, seat, control bracings
(where the pivot of the stick and rudder pedals go, things like that that take forces
through them and can't change position much or the plane won't control well -- them
kinda things folks) and armor attach even before lighter bracings, stiffeners and
skin are attached which most people just have NO IDEA how strong light metal with
bends attached to same really is but maybe spend time with VW's as dune buggys or
just for the loads they take and then really look at how they go together sometime
for an example. The stuff doesn't take being crushed as well as heavy solid frames
will but short of that there is tons of strength just in the light elements alone
and it is quite stiff.

The point now is anyway how much does the planes wobble, not bend. And how much is
just it looks like as opposed to does. And why some people see that and others don't?
Devicelink log could show if the control stick is moved as well as show any pitch
or yaw change. Best to put the trigger on the keyboard to eliminate influence on
the stick anyway.

Gibbage1
12-22-2004, 06:05 PM
Also remember this. The nose gear is mounted in the same area with the guns and that must be very strong to take the stress of landing's.

From my examining of Glacier Gal's gun area, the metal in there was VERY thick. The top two .50's and the 20MM was mounted in what looks like a cast tub. The metal was 1/8th's inch thick, and you can see how many rivits was used.

Also, as for my point about the 73lb tripod. Remember, thats a FLEXABLE mount with 1 point of attachment. These are RIGID mounts with 2 points. There is no way in hell you can explain how a flex mount will have less shake and dispersion then a solid mount on an aircraft.

OldMan____
12-22-2004, 06:13 PM
Maybe because ground is more stable than air ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Not saing its right or wrong.. but is not that simple.. it is a much more complicated thing. Calculatig vibrations on mechanic systems is a very complex science.

If anyone here has a degree on it..speak it. Otherwise is PURE assumptions.

WUAF_Co_Hero
12-22-2004, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The lighting does currently outturn the 190.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't say much though: The FW is very likely the WORST manuvering aircraft at very low speeds. The P-47 can outturn it slow, so I would imagine that a P-38 can.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2004, 02:19 AM
"Pretty sure the gun mounts would be almost part of the central framing structure of
the plane that the pod would be built around, not gun mounts attached to the pod."

That's what it looked like.

I remembered about the landing gear when falling asleep last night. Good point!

Aaron_GT
12-23-2004, 02:24 AM
" The metal was 1/8th's inch thick, and you can see how many rivits was used."

That's pretty impressively thick in a plane for which weight is a premium. That should be pretty rigid then

"Also, as for my point about the 73lb tripod. Remember, thats a FLEXABLE mount with 1 point of attachment. These are RIGID mounts with 2 points. There is no way in hell you can explain how a flex mount will have less shake and dispersion then a solid mount on an aircraft."

I was debating the sources of possible bending, etc. that there could be. With 1/8 inch mounts then it sounds like not much. How many mils of dispersion are we getting? Should be around 6 to 8 mils according to the USA(A)F document including movement issues. The 50 cal replacement gets 1.5 mils dispersion from a heavy mount. If it matches the 6 to 8 mils of the documentation for 50 cals in general I am happy. I suppose the debate then is how big are the outliers and which planes are the outliers. Doesn't the IL2 series simplify things somewhat on dispersion so that it isn't specific to exact plane types and gun locations, just something a bit simpler than that which models some of the effects only?

Aaron_GT
12-23-2004, 02:26 AM
"If anyone here has a degree on it..speak it. Otherwise is PURE assumptions."

I could ask my father-in-law only his expertise is in metal framing for office buildings and malls and the like. But it is metal frameworks at least. He might at least be able to give some sort of appreciation of how complex it would be to calculate. I don't think he's had to deal with the complexities of mounting batteries of 50 cals on any office buildings though :-)

Gibbage1
12-23-2004, 03:05 AM
Here is some more data for you guys too digest. I love talking about the P-38.

#1, the P-38 was designed around a 23MM canon and later a 37MM canon was chosen. Those are BIG guns. 20MM should be nothing if it can handle a 37MM!

Here is a cutaway drawing. You can see that the gunmount "tub" is in horizontal alignment with the main wings spar thats connected to the engine's. Everything is aligned on the horizontal and to the datum. That means the recoil forces would stay in the horizontal, not the vertical.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/cutaway-new-color.jpg

Also, just for kicks, here is some cool video of a M2 beign fired on a 73lb tripod. Note the hill is about 100 yards away (my guess) and that they were able to place every round into an area the size of a tree stump in full auto.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/M2HB.wmv

I hope you guys find this stuff just as interesting as I do.

I also saw a video were they were testing a Japanese blade. They had an M2HB fire at the blade. The blade cut 5 bulletes IN HALF before braking.

Its impressive that the blade survived being struck 5 times in a row. Its ALSO impressive that they HIT A SWORD 5 TIMES IN A ROW ON A 73LB GUN MOUNT! God those gun mounts musta had some type of gyro stabilising or something. =)

GR142-Pipper
12-23-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
(...snip...) God those gun mounts musta had some type of gyro stabilising or something. =) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've never heard of an AIRCRAFT having gyro-stabalized gun mounts. I heard of them having gyro-stabalized, lead-computing gun SIGHTS, though.

Typically, gyro-stabalized gun mounts refer to gun systems in tanks or aboard ships.

GR142-Pipper

ZG77_Nagual
12-23-2004, 09:06 AM
Heres a redux of the 38 v10 flight. Once again I didn't chase down the stragglers/slow crashers. The 38 is very close to the 109 in turn - I wonder if the 109k is overmodeled in this regard as it is very hard to get away from in many a/c. The 190 is far from the only a/c the 38 outturns though this track is not the best turnfighting demo - there are a couple good turns in it. A/c once again are 4 j2m, 4 n1k1 and 2 ki84 all ace. 38 is a J.
Goal is an immediate kill with every hit - I'll post that when I get it.

P38J vs 10 (http://webpages.charter.net/cmorey/38jv10.zip)

Gibbage1
12-23-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Heres a redux of the 38 v10 flight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not seen the video yet, but good job!

One thing I love doing is picking appart a big formation of bombers in QMB. With the P-38, you must go for the PK, unless your shooting Betty's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It helps me improve my aim a lot.

ZG77_Nagual
12-23-2004, 03:48 PM
Thanks Gib. It is about centerline shots - though the hayates and n1k1s have nice flammable wings. The J2ms have a nasty habit of detonating - which can make closeups risky. I hope they put a cockpit in the J2m - that would be a very fun japanese plane to master - sort of like an I-185 - fierce climber - fast - but not a great turn. Be a nice change from the other japanese birds. the one I'd really like though is the dinah.

VF-29_Sandman
12-23-2004, 04:51 PM
if this would be fixed, the 38 would be spot-on.

items: high alt performance needs tweeked; then u would need to worry more about the high alt compression it was famous for.

level acceleration: should easily go from cruising level with a slow bi-plane and accelerate like u stomped ur foot to the floor. right now...it dont do it.

elimination of: rudder oscillation. plane seems to like to fishtail for no reason at times.

elimination of: compressibility at low alts. from 10,000' and down, the danger of compression should be minimal at best.

VF-29_Sandman
12-25-2004, 11:54 AM
seems the rudders oscillate rather badly and without reason in 3.03. any1 else havin this happen? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

oldschool1992
12-26-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
if this would be fixed, the 38 would be spot-on.

items: high alt performance needs tweeked; then u would need to worry more about the high alt compression it was famous for.

level acceleration: should easily go from cruising level with a slow bi-plane and accelerate like u stomped ur foot to the floor. right now...it dont do it.


elimination of: compressibility at low alts. from 10,000' and down, the danger of compression should be minimal at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is porked I was run down by a 109 and 190 after I blew past them at 340mph and they still caught up to me go figure if they dont fix it they should remove it completely from game

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 07:31 PM
u probably tried to reverse course too soon and on the horizontal plane. not good. its best strengths is in its climb rate. if u expect this ship to turn like a spitfire, it wont happen.

OldMan____
12-27-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oldschool1992:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
if this would be fixed, the 38 would be spot-on.

items: high alt performance needs tweeked; then u would need to worry more about the high alt compression it was famous for.

level acceleration: should easily go from cruising level with a slow bi-plane and accelerate like u stomped ur foot to the floor. right now...it dont do it.


elimination of: compressibility at low alts. from 10,000' and down, the danger of compression should be minimal at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is porked I was run down by a 109 and 190 after I blew past them at 340mph and they still caught up to me go figure if they dont fix it they should remove it completely from game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]

what is the problem in that? A 109-k4 and a 190D9 can accelerate hell of fast too and have higher max speed.

Bull_dog_
12-27-2004, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oldschool1992:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
if this would be fixed, the 38 would be spot-on.

items: high alt performance needs tweeked; then u would need to worry more about the high alt compression it was famous for.

level acceleration: should easily go from cruising level with a slow bi-plane and accelerate like u stomped ur foot to the floor. right now...it dont do it.


elimination of: compressibility at low alts. from 10,000' and down, the danger of compression should be minimal at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is porked I was run down by a 109 and 190 after I blew past them at 340mph and they still caught up to me go figure if they dont fix it they should remove it completely from game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]

what is the problem in that? A 109-k4 and a 190D9 can accelerate hell of fast too and have higher max speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not entirely certain about your statement about the K-4 and D-9 being faster...the boosted version of the L model at altitude could fly 440+mph...per Lockheeds data. Problem is that most common books I read list unboosted speed. Altitude is obviously a factor in overall speed, but there is lots of misinformation on all kinds of aircraft. The J model was faster at some altitudes than its contemporary enemies...the G-2, G-6, A-5 and A-6 and could out turn both at certain speeds and outclimb the Fw's.....

Point is, that in the right performance envelope, the Lightnings were superior in some aspects and lacking in others... Oleg has not modelled the aircraft properly, has not modelled compressibility properly and has made no attempt to nor acknowledged there is even an issue. I don't hide the fact that I love P-38's...I do...but I would like to be able to engage the enemy and win when I fly right and smart (historically speaking) and be shot down by a superior pilot...as opposed to a superior plane when I don't fly right.

Things that need changed:
1. Compressibility at medium and low altitude
2. Elevator authority below 420mph IAS
3. Boost on both J and L models...J had boost, L had water injection
4. Lower stall speed and better stall characteristics
5. Less pitch and less head shake...it was a very stable gun platform
6. Acceleration...and check climb speeds...there is a corrosponding climb improvemnt with boost too...the L could climb at something like 4200+ ft/min with boost

Any one of those things probably doesn't nueter the plane, but all of them together make the aircraft a poor approximation of the real thing.

VF-29_Sandman
12-27-2004, 07:57 PM
stall speed on the lightning was 70mph indicated. and it will stall there so that's modeled right. what isnt right is the compressibility at low/med alts, and proper acceleration reponse. the head shake with the 50 calibers appear to have been changed with 3.03...very very slight now if any. 20mm shakes just a tad but not quite as bad as it used to be.

all i ask is for oleg to check: 1: the compressibility issue at low/med alt. 20,000' and up, compression was a major factor historically. it was fighting the 109/190's at extreme alt (above 25,000') is where they found out about this phenomina.
2: level acceleration rate. powering up and releasing the brakes on the ground, pilots had said the takeoff acceleration was like gettin kicked in the azz. with that fixed, the climb rate would also be on par with historical.
3: stall/spin characteristics. the 70mph speed is accurate, it's that right now, she has a tendency to stall w/o warning instead of just mushing into 1. she'll also tend to go into a spin rather easy also that's almost impossible to get out of.

this would more than likely make the 38 the potent force that it was historically. and as long as the ship was flown the way it was intended. it was drummed into pilots' heads....dont try to turn with a zero low and slow. u'll lose 9x's out of 10.

Bull_dog_
12-27-2004, 08:51 PM
The compressibility was actually discovered in trial test flights. It was standard practice to take an aircraft up to maximum altitude and power dive it to the deck...the P-38 was the first aircraft whose design, altitude performance and dive combined to discover the compressibility...of course nobody knew at that time what they were dealing with...this would have been late 41 or early 42. There is tons of documentation, including NACA information, that talks about the compressibility envelope facts and myths. No shortage of information on this topic, only a shortage of action.

Yesterday, I was flying offline on the Okinawa map and I throttled back while in a dive to control my dive and I found my elevator authority was poor...not gone...but the Tony I was fighting just dove and turned away...I looked at my controls and found my altitude to be 10,500 ft. and my IAS to be 310mph...this is Soooooo wrong. This modelling, whether just elevator authoriy, or poor compressibility modelling is the single biggest wart on the face of the Lightning....can't us B&Z tactics as was historically possible at altitudes below 20,000 ft. In fact, in the L model you have to use dive breaks to keep your speed down which works ok, but then you are travelling at the same speed as your opponents in many cases thus losing your energy advantage and becoming easy prey for the helicoptor like 109's in the game...now that is how a Lightning should stand on its nose...no torque, no problems at full throttle hammerheads...of course that also entails that you don't go immediately into a flat spin, which in game has been improved slightly but not historically correct...just look at the tricycle landing gear...kinda indicative that the aircraft had some weight forward.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
stall speed on the lightning was 70mph indicated. and it will stall there so that's modeled right. what isnt right is the compressibility at low/med alts, and proper acceleration reponse. the head shake with the 50 calibers appear to have been changed with 3.03...very very slight now if any. 20mm shakes just a tad but not quite as bad as it used to be.

all i ask is for oleg to check: 1: the compressibility issue at low/med alt. 20,000' and up, compression was a major factor historically. it was fighting the 109/190's at extreme alt (above 25,000') is where they found out about this phenomina.
2: level acceleration rate. powering up and releasing the brakes on the ground, pilots had said the takeoff acceleration was like gettin kicked in the azz. with that fixed, the climb rate would also be on par with historical.
3: stall/spin characteristics. the 70mph speed is accurate, it's that right now, she has a tendency to stall w/o warning instead of just mushing into 1. she'll also tend to go into a spin rather easy also that's almost impossible to get out of.

this would more than likely make the 38 the potent force that it was historically. and as long as the ship was flown the way it was intended. it was drummed into pilots' heads....dont try to turn with a zero low and slow. u'll lose 9x's out of 10. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateAce
12-28-2004, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
....can't us B&Z tactics as was historically possible at altitudes below 20,000 ft. In fact, in the L model you have to use dive breaks to keep your speed down which works ok, but then you are travelling at the same speed as your opponents in many cases thus losing your energy advantage and becoming easy prey for the helicoptor like 109's in the game.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eggzactly.

I don't expect to be able to out turn very many opponents, but when there is gimmick modeling in place because the P38 happened to be one of the first airframes to encounter compressability...the AC cannot even be used in a historical sense.


Sandman, are you imagining things? I don't see any change in the gunshake. Anyone have a clever way to actually extract a measurement for how far the nose is bobbing around? One really tell-tale sign that the nose wanders all over during gunnery is to watch your trk fights via the wonderwoman view.

OldMan____
12-28-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oldschool1992:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
if this would be fixed, the 38 would be spot-on.

items: high alt performance needs tweeked; then u would need to worry more about the high alt compression it was famous for.

level acceleration: should easily go from cruising level with a slow bi-plane and accelerate like u stomped ur foot to the floor. right now...it dont do it.


elimination of: compressibility at low alts. from 10,000' and down, the danger of compression should be minimal at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed is porked I was run down by a 109 and 190 after I blew past them at 340mph and they still caught up to me go figure if they dont fix it they should remove it completely from game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]

what is the problem in that? A 109-k4 and a 190D9 can accelerate hell of fast too and have higher max speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not entirely certain about your statement about the K-4 and D-9 being faster...the boosted version of the L model at altitude could fly 440+mph...per Lockheeds data. Problem is that most common books I read list unboosted speed. Altitude is obviously a factor in overall speed, but there is lots of misinformation on all kinds of aircraft. The J model was faster at some altitudes than its contemporary enemies...the G-2, G-6, A-5 and A-6 and could out turn both at certain speeds and outclimb the Fw's.....

Point is, that in the right performance envelope, the Lightnings were superior in some aspects and lacking in others... Oleg has not modelled the aircraft properly, has not modelled compressibility properly and has made no attempt to nor acknowledged there is even an issue. I don't hide the fact that I love P-38's...I do...but I would like to be able to engage the enemy and win when I fly right and smart (historically speaking) and be shot down by a superior pilot...as opposed to a superior plane when I don't fly right.

Things that need changed:
1. Compressibility at medium and low altitude
2. Elevator authority below 420mph IAS
3. Boost on both J and L models...J had boost, L had water injection
4. Lower stall speed and better stall characteristics
5. Less pitch and less head shake...it was a very stable gun platform
6. Acceleration...and check climb speeds...there is a corrosponding climb improvemnt with boost too...the L could climb at something like 4200+ ft/min with boost

Any one of those things probably doesn't nueter the plane, but all of them together make the aircraft a poor approximation of the real thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeap.. but the p38L we have is the Unboosted one. You have to compare with unboosted data .. or request for oleg an specific boosted version.

Without boost on p38, both Dora and late 109 are faster than p38

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-28-2004, 06:53 AM
Boosted J and L - modells get my vote,

make the boosted J an 43late
and the L an 44 late or whatever so we can have both http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(both because the mission designer had more options in order to make tha mission doable for both sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
and please once you are on, give us a 1942 P38!
maybe we should open a new threat about that stuff, remember the A6?
it was just tow words from Oleg and it was in game. the P38 could be simmlar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 11:30 AM
QUOTE]

yeap.. but the p38L we have is the Unboosted one. You have to compare with unboosted data .. or request for oleg an specific boosted version.

Without boost on p38, both Dora and late 109 are faster than p38[/QUOTE]

Yes we are in agreement on this point...which is one of the many reasons I jump on every lightning thread I see...I personally didn't know of any L model lightnings that were produced without boost. According to my sources, the J model was produced with the V-1710-89/91 engines which had WEP and produced 1600hp per engine...the L model's engines brought Hp to over 1700 hp per engine. The H model had the same engine as the J without the WEP and had a 720hp dissadvantage as a result.

Soooo....if the L model and J models had WEP and the version in AEP doesn't...then that means?????

Its wrong...so Oleg, please fix it.

BSS_CUDA
12-28-2004, 05:50 PM
could you imagine the climb rate on a boosted 38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif man the Lufty's would be whinning then. on thing I have noticed, is that after the 3.03 patch it will depart the wing LOTS easier than before, it used to be a VERY stable platform, but now it is a little more difficult to fly in a fight. Oh well time to adjust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif just give me that boosted version and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Aaron_GT
12-28-2004, 06:18 PM
"I'm not entirely certain about your statement about the K-4 and D-9 being faster"

377mph at SL, 452mph at 20,000 feet for the 109K-4

357 at SL, 426 at 21,000 feet for the 190D-9

Unboosted P38L is 414mph at 25,000 feet, 360 at 5000 feet (so probably around 350 at sea level and around 400 at 20,000 feet).

So the 109K-4 and 190D-9 should be faster up to at least 20,000 feet than the P38L, although it is pretty close to the 190D-9 and some of the 109K-4 figures are disputed by some. With boost it's going to be pretty much neck-and-neck.

Aaron_GT
12-28-2004, 06:22 PM
".I personally didn't know of any L model lightnings that were produced without boost."

'The P-38L was powered by 1475 hp Allison V-1710-111/113 engines with a war emergency rating of 1600 hp at 28,700 feet and a military rating of 1475 hp at 30,000 feet.'

So this would be the boost, but all the figures I see for speed at 20,000 feet never mention whether WEP is being used or not. You'd assume that the maxmimum speed (using WEP) would be the one quoted, but maybe not.

VF-29_Sandman
12-28-2004, 06:50 PM
quote: Sandman, are you imagining things? I don't see any change in the gunshake. Anyone have a clever way to actually extract a measurement for how far the nose is bobbing around? One really tell-tale sign that the nose wanders all over during gunnery is to watch your trk fights via the wonderwoman view.

what resolution are u running? i usually run at 1024x768x32 in ogl, at times the next step up. what i'm looking at is where i'm putting the gunsite and looking for sparks coming off the target. i'm not looking at the tracers very much tho.
if ur nose is bouncing all over the place in turns and u cant get a fire solution, try reducing joystick response a bit on the 1st slider. if u see any movement in the virtual stick with just a gnat hair of input from the joystick, u have a bit of slop in the stick and reducing the 1st slider will get the slop out. and that will make aiming alot easier.
if u are looking solely at the cockpit windsheild bar, u'll probably notice the shake more. but if ur eyes are locked soley on the bandit and where the gunsite is tracking, u'll barely, if any, notice any shake with the 50's.

HayateAce
12-28-2004, 07:12 PM
Thanks Sandman, I will try that input adjustment. Agree that fixating more on the target than the cockpit rattling around does help some.

&lt;S&gt;

PS: Running same resolution as you.

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 07:50 PM
One of the many places we talk about compressibility above 20K and how it really should be modelled:

In the early stages of development, the P-38 was far more advanced than any other fighter aircraft being designed by the United States. To think that this new aircraft would not encounter any developmental problems would have been naive. In fact, the P-38 would face a serious problem, one that would almost cause its demise.

Kelly Johnson had admiration for the British Spitfire design. He especially liked the smooth, sleek wing design. The Spitfire was one the finest fighters during the war, and could hold its own against any other fighter in production. One problem was with the range. Spitfires had limited range, and the specifications for the new P-38 fighter called for an aircraft with good range capabilities. In order to accommodate the design specifications, the P-38 had a thick wing. This design allowed for larger internal fuel tanks to be installed within the wings, and would also allow for a sound structure to attach either external tanks or bombs on. The solid wing on the P-38 created tremendous lifting characteristics. One other characteristic was that is also allowed the aircraft to experience compressibility.

Compressibility occurs what the P-38 entered dives stated above 20,000 ft. The airflow would be "splashed" over the leading edge of the wing instead of the usual smooth airflow. The splashed air would approach the sound barrier (not the aircraft itself, but rather the speed of the air flowing over the wing), thus causing a shockwave effect on the trailing edge. This would render the controls inoperable, leaving the pilot without any control of the aircraft. Two possibilities would then ensue. Either the aircraft would slow as it descended into denser air closer to the ground and the pilot would regain control and pull out of the dive. Or in some cases, the P-38 would simply disintegrate. Many pilots would lose their lives when they inadvertently entered a steep dive, or when performing dive tests. More importantly, this problem would affect the performance of early operational versions of the P-38, and also caused many rumors that plagued the P-38 early in the war.

Tony Levier described compressibility as, "It resembled a giant phantom hand that seized the plane and sometimes shook it out of the pilot's control." George Gray wrote in a history of the NACA, "The behavior was new to pilots, terrifying, baffling. Several men, in putting this two-engine fighter through its diving maneuvers, underwent the experience: A sudden violent buffeting of the tail accompanied by a lunging and threshing about of the place, as though it were trying to free itself on invisible bonds, and then the maddening immobility of the controls, the refusal of the elevators to respond to the stick." Use of elevator trim would sometimes bring the P-38 out of a dive before destruction. Sometimes the P-38 would begin to tuck under and begin to come out of the dive upside-down. Levels of stress on the airframe were staggering, and the fact that the aircraft would come out of the dive at all was proof of its strength. Hal Hibbard described the compressibility problem as, "€¦the air tends to be 'splashed' by the leading edge of the wing more of less like the prow of a boat at high speed in the water. As one approached the compressibility range, the air is throw to violently up and down the leading edge that is does not have a chance to flow over the wing in the proper manner."

VF-29_Sandman
12-28-2004, 07:51 PM
yea if u go back to 3.02 and compare with 3.03, u'll notice it then. in 3.02, it seemed like even the glass was shaking. now the 50's are barely noticeable, and the 20mm has just a tad amount of shake...liveable tho. just wish they'd get the more extreme issues repaired http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 07:52 PM
and more:

Kelly Johnson would issue a report early in 1942. In the "Study of Diving Characteristics of the P-38", Johnson would state that at a critical airspeed, which varies in altitude, a certain condition exists which causes problems with the airflow. The airflow over the surface area of the wings would separate to produce a special form of stall. At higher speeds, flow separation spreads over the upper surface, and the aircraft tends to be nose-heavy due to a shift in the center of lift. This caused a loss of pitch control. Lockheed engineer Phil Coleman originally specified a dive test plan as early as 1940. He stated that vertical dives should be initiated at 35,000 at modest power settings. The dive would continue until reaching a constant speed at 16,000 ft., and would continue until 13,000 ft. The pilot would then execute a 3 - 4 'g' pullout. The pullout should be completed at 7,000 ft., and should never exceed 570 mph.

Most early combat operational models would suffer from the compressibility problem. However, the problem was not experienced in all theaters of operation. The P-38 did not have compressibility issues while operating in India, the Mediterranean, or in the Pacific. This was primarily due to the nature of combat. In these areas, combat rarely took place above 25,000 ft., and compressibility would not occur if a dive was initiated below 25,000 ft. In Europe, combat operations were normally conducted at high altitudes. Soon, German pilots knew if they were in a bad situation, they could easily dive to safety. The P-38 would be able to dive faster than German fighters, but P-38 pilots were probably more scared of a high-speed dive than enemy fighters.

After extensive testing, the answer to the problem was the use of a dive flap (or brakes). These flaps would be attached to the main spar under the wing. This would offset the loss in lift while in high-speed dives, and would allow the pilot to remain in control throughout the dive. Test pilots Tony Levier and Milo Bircham began a series of dive tests with the flaps. Lt. Benjamin Kelsey was sent by the Air Corps to evaluate the progress of the dive flaps. He took the modified P-38 and proceeded to enter the dive. He had problems engaging the flap as he was beginning his dive. While in the dive, he experienced normal compressibility problems because the flaps were not activated, and the violent thrusts sheared the tail off from the main structure. Kelsey was able to bail out and only sustained a broken ankle. The aircraft was totally destroyed. Another test P-38 would not be fitted with dive flaps for a few months.

Finally, another test P-38 was fitted with the dive flaps and testing was resumed. The Air Corps wanted Lockheed to test the aircraft with 2,000 lbs. of more weight and to start dives at 35,000 ft. The extra weight would cause additional acceleration of the aircraft during its dive, and would approach the critical Mach number sooner. This would be even more hazardous than before. Levier and Bircham resumed testing and would start at a 45-degree dive, and increase each test dive an additional 5-degree until they encountered problems. Levier was the first to encounter problem while using the dive flap. He was in a 60-degree dive, and began having problems when we reached 31,000 ft. The aircraft began to get away from him, even with the flaps deployed. Levier was fighting the aircraft to prevent it from tucking under itself as if it were in a regular dive. He decided to ride it out to see what would happen. He began his recovery at 20,000 ft., but he would not really begin to regain control until he was at 13,000 ft. The instruments registering the strain on the airframe were all over the 100% limit load. Bircham eased it back to the base without putting further stress on the aircraft. This was the evidence they needed to prove the flaps would hold up under an extreme dive, and not lead to disaster like many P-38s prior.

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 07:53 PM
and a little more on the dive characteristics and how the Luftwaffe would use them against Lightning pilots:

A typical dive of the P-38 from high altitudes would always experience compressibility. Starting from 36,000 ft., the P-38 would rapidly approach the Mach .675 (445 mph true airspeed). At this point, the airflow going over the wing exceeds Mach 1. A shockwave is created, thus breaking up the airflow equaling a loss of lift. The shockwave destroys the pressure difference between the upper and lower wing, and disrupts the ability for the aircraft to sustain flight. As the lift decreases, the airflow moving back from the wing also changes in its form and pattern. Normal downwash aft of the wing towards the tail begins to deteriorate. The airflow across the tail shifts from normal to a condition where there is now a greater upload, of lifting force, on the tail itself. With the greater uploading force applied to the tail, the nose of the aircraft wants to nose down even more, which creates a steeper and faster dive. As the aircraft approaches the vertical line, it begins to tuck under and starts a high-speed outside loop. At this point, the airframe is at the greatest point of structural failure. When the angle of attack increases during the dive, it also increases for the tail. The resulting effect is that the pilot cannot move the controls because tremendous force is required to operate the aircraft. The pilot is simply a passenger during this period. Shockwaves become shock fronts, which decrease the lift no matter what the pilot tries to do. Instead of smooth airflow over the wing, it is extremely turbulent, and strikes the tail with great force. The aircraft can only recover when it enters lower, denser atmosphere lower to the ground.

The solution to the problem was in understanding that the speed of sound changes with the altitude. At sea level, it is 764 mph, while at 36,000 ft. it is 660 mph. An aircraft moving at 540 mph at 36,000 ft. is much higher in the compressibility zone. The same speed at sea level results in the aircraft being exposed to lower effects of compressibility, and will respond to pilot controls. The dive recovery flap was a solution to this problem. In the ETO, German pilots would dive out of trouble because they knew the P-38 pilots would not follow. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of the aircraft in normal battle conditions. The NACA tested the flaps in high-speed wind tunnels at the Ames Laboratory. They tried several locations before discovering that when the flaps were positioned just aft of the trailing edge of the wings, it showed definite improvements. The flaps were finally positioned beneath the wings outboard of the booms, and just aft of the main structural beam. The pilots had a button on the yoke, and would simply activate the flap just prior to entering a dive.

VF-29_Sandman
12-28-2004, 07:58 PM
bet those dudes had to wear diapers and change em after landing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 08:12 PM
Some words from the pages of flight journal from a fellow who got to fly a P-38L

Level off, power back to 30 inches and 2,000rpm, mixtures to auto-lean, boost pumps to normal, fuel selectors to main tanks. What a sight! Within the wing, I felt as if I were being absorbed by the machine€"becoming a part of it rather than riding in it. One of the weak points of the design comes across right away: the engines and wings on each side really block the view down. The only way to keep one's scan up is to roll the airplane into a steep bank and then roll back, which doesn't do wingmen much good in formation. I can see why mutual scan among flight members was so critical. My first few turns were effortless; the aileron boost makes an enormous difference. Unlike with a jet, the turns have to be coordinated with a firm push on the rudders, which are stiffer than both ailerons and elevators. Without wasting any time, I decided to do the one thing I had wanted to do more than any other: a barrel-roll€"Dad's favorite maneuver. Nose down for a little extra speed, pull back, turn the wheel and push the rudder pedal. The P-38 glided through just as wonderfully as I thought it would. Another, even better. Another, perfection. With one hand on the wheel and the other on the throttles, it's just as easy. With both hands on the wheel, I pulled it into a tight turn and was delighted to find the elevators almost as light as the ailerons. Making tight turns and loops was so easy that I grinned involuntarily. When going over the top of the loop, no right rudder was needed at all; just keep the feet on the floor. This was becoming far too easy.

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. While flying formation with the Cherokee Six camera ship, I was full of trepidation. The last time I did that in a Mustang, I held a bootful of right rudder, hanging on the ragged edge of a reduced power-on stall. At 100mph, I could hang the P-38 on its props, feet on the floor, and gently move the rudder to slide side to side.

Within an hour, something quite astonishing and totally unexpected began to happen. Not only was I more than comfortable, but the airplane also began to "shrink" around me in my mind. The wings seemed to get smaller, the engines went almost unnoticed, and I was soon flying only the central pod with its guns sticking out front. The sense of power, freedom and effortless control movement is so visceral the machine becomes a part of you. As this dawned on me, I was abruptly sharing the cockpit with young Lt. Erv Ethell. His recollections of handling the P-38 in combat became my own; his hands were my hands. The generational circle closed around me as I soared above the Oregon coastline and I began to talk to him, even though he was 2,500 miles away.

Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. The 109 would have been a sitting duck.

This transitional performance is what made the Lightning great in a dogfight; it gave it far more versatility than a single-engine fighter. No doubt, if it were flown like a single-engine fighter, it would come out on the short end, but when a pilot learned to use everything available to him, it was stunningly dangerous to the enemy. One final characteristic made all this worthwhile: there was no converging fire from the wings. A P-38 pilot could get all of his guns on target whether it was 10 feet or 1,000 yards away. Convinced they were flying the finest fighter of the War, Bong and McGuire were sold on this combination. They had no hesitation at going round and round with Zeros and Oscars, which were supposedly more maneuverable.

However, once going downhill, the other Achilles heel of the Lightning comes out: compressibility. I never got there, but I passed 400mph in a dive without much time to think about it. There's a dive-limit placard in the cockpit, and observing it was absolutely mandatory. The Pilot's Instructions state, "As the airplane approaches the critical speed, it becomes rapidly nose-heavy and starts to buffet as if it were about to stall. If this condition is allowed to develop, the nose-heavy condition will become more pronounced, and it will be very difficult to pull out." Many never pulled out. Fortunately, the P-38L had dive flaps€"large electrically driven surfaces under each outside wing that deflected no matter what the speed. I hit the switch on the wheel and, with no pull on the wheel at all, the plane pulled out and pitched up into a shallow climb. When I retracted the flaps, the nose pitched down into level flight€"all with no input. Unfortunately, dive flaps did not come along until the late J Series€"about the same time as the aileron boost€"but far too late for most who had flown the P-38 in combat.

Another bugaboo with the Lightning was bailing out and hitting the horizontal stabilizer; actually, it wasn't that prevalent. There were several methods: (1) slow down to around 110mph with full flaps if possible, crawl out of the cockpit and slide headfirst down the wing; Lockheed said you'd miss the horizontal stabilizer by four feet; (2) roll over with elevator trim forward and fall out; (3) at high speed, just pop the hatch and get sucked out.

Reluctantly, I had to head back to Tillamook; after beating up the west coast of Oregon, I had run out of ideas. Initial for an overhead fan break: 360 degrees overhead approach at 250mph; fuel-tank selectors on main or reserve (whichever is fullest); mixtures to auto rich; props to 2,600rpm; boost pumps on and emergency. Racing across the numbers, I pulled up and left into the break. Move flap handle to the maneuver stop; gear down below 175mph; 50 percent flaps at 150mph and settle into the downwind. From base to final, bring the power back to 18 inches and stabilize at 140mph. With the field made, add full flaps, bleed airspeed down to 120mph; over the fence at 100 to 110mph, but never exceed 100mph on touchdown or the P-38 will really eat up some runway. Both throttles to idle and pull the wheel back. That first landing at around 80mph felt like setting a baby carriage down with a satisfying squeak€"way too easy. Hold the wheel back for aerodynamic braking, then lower the nose; we haven't gone much more than 2,000 feet. Absolutely amazing.

With one engine out, the landing technique is similar with the following exceptions: 160mph and 1,600 feet on downwind, aileron boost off to conserve hydraulic power, 50 percent flaps at 140mph; partially reduce rudder trim, approach no slower than 130mph. At 44 inches and 2,600rpm, the P-38 will barely hold altitude with gear down and flaps up and will not hold any altitude even with some flaps extended. Do not extend full flap until closing the throttle on the good engine for landing. Below 500 feet with full flaps, you must land as it will not make a go-around.

Off the active; brake to a stop; flaps up; coolant flaps full open; boost pumps off. Back to the parking area, throttles up to 1,200 rpm; stabilize temperatures; mixtures to idle cut-off; mags off; battery off. I have come full circle. Reining back some obvious prejudice from growing up with Dad's memories, I have come to see the P-38 in a far different light. There is little doubt in my mind I have flown the finest American fighter of WW II. It may have taken a little more time to master and certainly was more complex to maintain in the field, but the options available to the Lightning pilot were impressive. A talented, aggressive fighter pilot could clearly make the P-38 sing. I count myself fortunate to have heard, at last, that siren song.

Bull_dog_
12-28-2004, 08:35 PM
Probably the best online aritcle that I've found is here:

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

Much like Oleg discovered with some Japanese aircraft, errors get copied over and over and there are many truths and falsehoods written about the Lightning...particularly about some of the performance characteristics. A detailed description with charts can be found, and you'll note the commonly published speed of 414 mph with a 7 minute climb was running the 1475hp engines and full power without boost. There were two boost levels used with the L model; the first generating 1600hp/engine and a later variety (late 44 I believe) that like other aircraft featured higher manifold pressures and generated 1725hp per engine. This engine/boost combination gave the aircraft phenominal speed and climb...about 440mph and 4200ft/min climb rates.

Notice in the above articles and other readings that the lightning had very good high speed handling characteristics up to the point of compressibility...in game the control surfaces get real slow prior to actual compressibility. Also note the roll rates at speed...very good, in fact best in class after a certain point... I have a belief that in game, roll rates are missing an element of accleration and probably some other intangible aspect.

I say that because in real life, based on what I have read, as speed increased some aircraft gained manuverability and some lost it...for example the Fw, Mustang, Lightning and Jug got better with speed while Spitfires, Messerschmidts, Zeroes, Hurricanes got worse. The biggest reason for this is how difficult it became to move the control surfaces...especially ailerons. The unboosted lightning had a good rate of roll, but it too a bit to get it going...hence the missing acceleration part...the L fixed that as it was snappy. The aircraft that manuever better at high speed also didn't suffer the wind up problems and there were cockpit and stick design considerations that helped or hindered a pilot from exerting pressure on the stick...a big roomy cockpit with a long stick was more user friendly at high speed due to the leverage. At low speed a shorter stick was more responsive...for example X-45 vs Wingman without the resistance...stick travel and cockpit space affected the amount of pressure a pilot was able to exert and the relative heaviness affected the responsiveness and acceleration of the manuever.

The L model was snappy due to powerboost. In addition, the roomy cockpit and the use of a wheel instead of a stick also allowed a pilot to exert more force, more quickly.

Lots of opportunity

ZG77_Nagual
12-28-2004, 08:54 PM
Nice discussion. We need to establish the nature of this problem at low alts - with supporting data for Oleg.

HayateAce
12-28-2004, 09:07 PM
".... not really begin to regain control until he was at 13,000 ft."


So really, diving from around 4,000 meters we should never notice any ill effects from compressibility as it is currently modeled in Forgotten Battles. If it's a game engine limitation, then remove the effect from the P38 alltogether.

So how about it 1C:Maddox, can we get this fixed?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Aaron_GT
12-29-2004, 07:24 AM
"and a later variety (late 44 I believe) that like other aircraft featured higher manifold pressures and generated 1725hp per engine."

There is debate over whether 1725hp was ever achieved anywhere but in a pressure chamber under tests, though. The evidence of it being used in reality is slim, and 1600hp (WEP) was limited to 5 minutes and even 100% (1475hp) to 15 minutes. Mind you, you can say the same about the top boosts on the 109 and 190 - very time limited, so that balances out. Without the boost the P38L is definitely slower than the 109K4 and 190D9 with boost, though. With boost they all end up at pretty much at a very similar speed at 20,000 feet.

VF-29_Sandman
12-29-2004, 07:32 AM
think if we can figure out how to correctly model the acceleration and the compression problems, the 38 could quite possibly turn into 1 of the best planes in the game.
firepower is outstanding with good aim..all it needs is the above fixed and it'll be a serious threat. but there will still be those that will try to turn with a slow azzed zeke on the deck, get his *** handed to em, and still whine its undermodeled when he wasnt flyin it in parameters.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-29-2004, 07:50 AM
i'd be verry happy with it having some 200HP more per engine and corrected copressibility (or whatever you write it...^^) the plane would rock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and i don't think the LW-Pilots would complain too much about it, it's still a big target drone, once behind it^^.

FW190 will still outroll it (as it does now)
and the 109 will still be able to turn inside it, but since the RoC and acceleration will be improoved as dive caracteristics the surivabilitys of the plane would gain some 20% i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif