PDA

View Full Version : 1C:Maddox Developer, Please Read. Supplement for P-38.



MachineII
01-28-2004, 12:23 PM
I have compiled some information on P-38 characteristics and performance. The purpose of this thread is to help provide the 1C:Maddox Developers of the P-38 add-on to have an idea of what the airplane should be capable of.

Hopefully, this information will be helpful to them and allow them to tweak the model to meet the expectations, based in reality, of the fans awaiting for its arrival.

Having said that, this is not a "my plane is better than your plane" thread. If you have a source, and data, feel free to add it to the discussion. A discussion, by the way, infers that you consider what others have to say prior to responding. Let's try to keep the conversation the P-38, also. While some comparisons must be made, we don't need to run the rabbit down about the developmental history of some other airframe.

Again, the purpose is to provide some solid data, inferences, and suggestions on how the P-38 should behave IN FB.

Thanks.

Alright, I ran across this article some time ago...it's quite good and tailored to the type of thing we are talking about here. The source list at the bottom of his page (click the link) is a who's who of P-38 information.

http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"P-38 details: data and information pertinent to virtual modeling"
by David C. Copley, last updated 23 Sep 2003

This article attempts to abridge and consolidate a number of P-38 references that contain important data and information pertinent to modeling the the P-38 for flight and combat simulation.

My complete reference listing may be found at the end of this page. Primary references include private correspondence with former P-38/F-4&5 pilots, the book America's Hundred Thousand, the P-38 Pilot's Manual, period and contemporary videos.

Ground Handling
The P-38's front wheel was a caster and was not directly controllable by the pilot. Steering was accomplished by differential throttle and braking. The pilot's manual stressed the former over the latter, to conserve brakes.

I have observed the ground handling in a number of period and contemporary videos, and it appears that the aircraft was easily controlled around corners and through taxiways using the aforementioned techniques. I was surprised to see that the turning radius was quite tight for its size.

Take-off
With zero wind and a hard, dry surface, a minimally-loaded P-38H/J/L could take off in a very short distance: 900ft. Minimum take-off distance for earlier Lightnings was approximately 1,400 ft. A fully-loaded J could take off in 1080 ft under the same ideal conditions. Of the USAAF fighters, only the P-40E had a shorter take-off distance with full load (1070 ft), and it was about half the weight of the P-38J!

Some sources suggest pilots regularly used flaps for take-off, other sources suggest they only did so when a short take-off was necessary. The pilot's manual suggests normal take-off is performed WITHOUT flaps, but up to 1/2 flaps may be used for short take-off.

Observing a video of a restored L, I timed a take off on a hard, dry, modern runway. With the propellers at full RPM and brakes on, the pilot released the brakes and was airborne in about 11 seconds. It took 7.5 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 70 mph. The gear took approximately 7 seconds to retract.

The aircraft would lift off the runway between 100 to 110 mph, and required very little effort to pull it up in the air.

Climb
Once airborne and "clean" (gear retracted, etc.), many pilots said that the the P-38 would climb like a "homesick angle."

The early P-38s could climb from sea level to 20,000 ft in about 8 minutes. Later variants (H+) could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. The original design goal was six minutes.

Flaps
Fowler flaps were part of the initial design.

The MANEUVER setting was introduced in mid-production of the F model (F-15). The MANEUVER setting pitched the flaps down 8 degrees and were often used for take-off and more importantly, combat, to decrease turning radius. Thus, this setting of the main flap system was sometimes called "COMBAT" flaps.

When the flaps lever was moved beyond the MANEUVER setting, the flaps would roll back on rails while also increasing pitch. Thus, the flaps were really a two-part, or hybrid design: 1) conventional hinged flap, and 2) Fowler.

Besides the MANEUVER setting, there were to two other automatic settings: "UP" "DOWN." By manually adjusting the flaps lever, the pilot could also set the flaps anywhere between.

Hydraulically boosted ailerons ("power steering")
Until the J-25 and L/M, it took quite a lot of "muscle" to roll the plane as its speed approached or exceeded 300mph. The late models (J-25 and on) had hydraulically boosted ailerons.

Dive-recovery Flaps
Dive recovery flaps were developed to mitigate compressibility during high speed dives. The P-38 was one of the first planes to encounter this phenomenon. Dive recovery flaps became standard equipment from the J-25 on. Some earlier J's were retrofitted with these flaps.

Dive flaps were positioned on the underside of the outerwing, just outboard of the engine nacelles. When deployed, a powerful electric motor would push one end of the flap, causing the flap to fold outward along a hinge. From the side, the dive flaps have a "V" profile.

In the manual, it states that the dive recovery flaps deploy in less than 2 seconds. When demonstrated on a video with the aircraft on the ground and stationary, I timed their deployment at 1 second. One would expect a slightly increase in deployment time in flight, due to the opposing force of the moving airstream. Pilots reported that when deployed in level flight, the nose would "pop up" very quickly, followed by a steady decrease in airspeed.

Typically, the dive-recovery flaps were deployed just before entering a dive. I have observed period film taken from P-38 gun cameras that suggest pilots could dive straight down for several thousand feet and still recover by deploying these flaps.

These flaps are NOT the so-called "COMBAT" flaps. See section on Flaps.

Roll
Generally, roll rate increases with speed. In early models, up to and including the J-20 production block, this trend held true until about 300 mph. Beyond 300 mph, roll rate became more of an issue of pilot strength, as the increasing force required on the control wheel required a lot of "muscle." Beginning with J-25, hydraulic boost allowed faster roll rates at speeds beyond 300 mph.

Between 250 mph and 300 mph IAS, the rates were similar for both earlier and later models, and were approximately 70 - 80 degrees per second (4.5 - 5 second roll).

Turn
Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the
FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed.

Acceleration
The P-38 had perhaps the fastest linear acceleration of all US propeller planes during WW2 (This was true to for all variants for their respective times) . For example, starting at sea level at 250 mph and applying COMBAT power the P-38L's linear acceleration was 4.13 ft/s2 (1.26 m/s2), whereas the P-51D's linear acceleration was 3.85 ft/s2 (1.17
m/s2).

Cruise and Range
Typical combat radius for the J/L variants was 275 miles for 410 US gallons of fuel (no external tanks) and 740 miles with 740 US gallons (external tanks). These ranges allowed for 20 minutes combat at target and 30 minutes of reserves.

Landing
With full flaps, "over-the-fence" speed was about 110 mph, flare at 80 - 90 mph.

Armament
From the E model on, most P-38s were equipped with four 0.50 caliber machine guns (up to 500 rounds per gun) and one 20 mm cannon (up to 150 rounds). The original design called for a 25 mm cannon, and very early models had a 37mm cannon.

The 0.50 caliber machine guns fired at 800 to 900 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 2,550 to 2,840 ft/sec. The effective range was 300 yards. All 2000 rounds could be fired in over 33 seconds.

The 20 mm cannon fired 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,920 ft/sec and effective range range of 1,200 yards. Continuous firing duration was 15 seconds.

The L and M were produced equipped with Christmas-tree style rocket launchers. Some Js and earlier models were retrofitted with the Christmas-tree launcher. Bazooka-style rocket launchers (triple-tube cluster) were also known to have been fitted to the fuselage.

Loads
The empty weight of the J model was 12,780 lbs compared to the YP-38, which weighed 11,196 lbs. A nominally-loaded J, with guns, oxygen equipment, trapped oil and trapped fuel, etc. weighed 14,100 lbs. With the pilot, ammunition, fuel, and useable oil, the J weighed about 16,200 lbs on take-off.

The very early P-38s (prototype and prove-design) could carry 400 - 410 gallons of fuel internally. Beginning with the D, internal fuel capacity decreased to 300 gallons. When the intercoolers were moved to the enlarged "chin" internal fuel capacity was restored to 410 gallons.

Engine Power Ratings
Variant Military Power Combat Power (WEP)
XP-38 &YP-38 1150 HP ea. n/a
P-38F & P-38G 1325 HP ea. n/a
P-38H 1240 HP ea. 1600 HP ea.
P-38J & P-38L 1425 HP ea.(some references state the L Military Power was rated to 1475 or 1500) 1600 HP ea.(some references list L WEP at 1725, but it is believed that this was obtained at higher rpm's and higher boost pressures than the std 3000 rpm, 60 in.)

Cockpit
Unlike most fighters of the time, all variants of the P-38 had a control "wheel" rather than a "stick." In early versions, it was literally a 3/4 wheel. Later versions had more of a yoke, as might be commercial and general aviation aircraft today.

The Lightning's panel layout was notoriously complicated. Gauge arrangement changed seomwhat from variant to variant. Early models had separate RPM and MANIFOLD PRESSURE gauges for each engine (i.e. Left RPM, Right RPM, etc.). Later models had single (but dual-needle) gauges for each function (i.e, dual-needle L&R RPM in single gauge, etc.).

Cockpit heat was a recurring problem and a major pilot complaint until the L model.

The canopy hatch opened to the right on earlier models (XP-38 through early F) and to the rear on later models (later F through M)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, from that data (And the books I have cited at the bottom) we should be able to draw some REASONABLE conclusions on the envelope on FB.

* Out-accelerate a Mustang...and most other fighters.

* Roll faster than a P-47 (~4.5-5 seconds @ 250 mph), about the same as a P-51 or LAGG.

* Climb rate is going to be VERY GOOD (excellent to 5,000 feet then slightly dropping off through 15,000 and then drastically through 25,000). AHT (citing the Joint Report, NACA, and USAAF data) states that with NORMAL power a P-38J/L @ 17,500 (that's the Gross weight for full internal fuel (2,490lbs) and ammo (712lbs)has a rate of climb of ~3,300fpm. Now, that same weight with WEP is 3,700+ fpm. But, let's FB it. Who flies in a DF @ 100% fuel? Well, you're a n00b. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif With 25% fuel on board (626lbs...more ammo than fuel!) the weight drops to 16,875lbs and climb performance should increase correspondingly. A sustained climb to 5,000ft @ 3,900fpm is not unconceiveable in FB with a P-38 w/ 25% fuel. Just an aside...the P-38K, never produced, would have had a climb rate of 5,500 fpm.

All weights are +/- 200 lbs dependent on pilot weight, test equipment, etc.

* Be faster than almost anything else (prop) in the game below 5,000 feet. The P-38J/L can pull 333mph/536 kph (343/552 with WEP) at Sea Level. Now at altitude it's no slouch: ~362mph/566kph (~380/611 with WEP) @ 10,000. You can, of course go higher, but most FB combat is 3,000m and below.

* Turn radius is gonna suck...P-47ish. But hey, it can't be WORSE. However, comparitively, the P-38's turn radius decreases the faster it goes. At high speeds (280+), the P-38 can (and did) out-turn a Zero's (w/ maneuver flaps and such). But while still the most acrobatic USAAF fighter (in terms of allowable manuevers in the Pilots
Manual), we're still taling BnZ. But, that's the USAAF tactic anyway...more on that later.

* Firepower? Unequaled. The LAGG comes close but only has two 12.7's and two 7.62's in the nose. So, like that but much more deadly. No convergence is gonna be a killer at LONG ranges. Fine with me. And 33 seconds of .50 fire time is just silly. Good silly.

* Fuel? Just like the P-51. Never more than 25%. Long mission? 50%.

* Payload? Tons of options. Up to 4,000lbs of ordnance. Impressive. But it's important to remember that everything that got strapped on the P-38 was an afterthought. The plane was A2A designed and developed. When it came to straffing, pilots ranked it dead last of USAAF types due to its susceptibility to ground fire. So, yeah, it's a dandy attack plane, but it SHOULD be a better fighter.

* Compressibility will be interesting. Actually. I cannot put it better than P38Online ( http://p-38online.com/dive.html ):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A typical dive of the P-38 from high altitudes would always experience compressibility. Starting from 36,000ft., 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, compressibility effects should begin @ 445mph/716kph @ ~10,000m...of course that airspeed is higher at lower altitudes. This doesn't mean the plane falls apart, or for the most part is uncontrollable (at first). Just that you begin to embark on a course toward very bad things happening. Below 5,000 feet it shouldn't be nearly the
problem it is at high altitude. This is ONE of the reasons the P-38 did poorly in the ETO (and complexity, and training...see the link below) as the 8th AF forced it to operate at high altitudes the plane had not done previously. This is ALSO why the P-38 did VERY well in the MTO and PTO where the plane was able to operate at moderate altitudes and warmer temperatures. Most of the problems with the P-38 involve things other than flight
performance characteristics. But, check the link I have included at the bottom, it's a great study.

* Taking hits is gonna suck every square inch of the P-38's fue****e is packed with goodness. On the bright side, the traditional spot where there is fuesalage is conveniently empty. A head on pass from a P-38 was viewed as suicidal by Luftwaffe pilots (Bergurand cites a few) because your staring through unconverged fire and the front is all armored and engines. The rear, bottom and top are altogether a different story. Pretty vulnerable. However, the sides, well depends on how good you are. Perry Dahl of 475th FG "Satan's Angels" has a story:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One day I was flying and I was watching a flight of Zeros and waiting for them to attack: They were trying to maneuver to get around to the sun. I was watching them intently when I saw this flash out of my peripheral vision. There was another Zero, twenty yards off off my other wing pounding at me. I didn't have time to do anything so I just threw that engine up into him, and he just shot the bejeezus out of it. I just threw that engime up and let it take all the hits. I kept everything at full power and I just screamed for the deack and went home. After all of the cooling ran out of the right engine, I shut her down and went home on the other engine. In a single-engine he would have had me. I got home with eighty-four holes in the airplane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quoted in Fire in the Sky by Bergerund (Great Book!).

Strategery

Best bet? Stay fast. Altitude won't be a problem either. Down low you can be fast. Up high you can be fast. Part of the problem with compressibility was that the airplane tended to pick up speed very quickly in even slight dives (heck, it's 17,000lbs of airplane).

The USAAF rule was no climbs in combat exceeding 30 degrees and keep your speed above ~300mph. That's not a problem at any altitude for the Lightning. But it was also VERY frowned upon to get in a turn fight, also.

Here's the link I referred to above:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

My particular sources, must haves for anybody who wants to have intelligent conversation about this stuff, are below. However, there is nothing wrong with owning AHT, even if you don't like USAAF stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Also, the Bodie book is VERY well written and quite a good read.

America's Hundred Thousand, Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997.
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Warren M. Bodie, Widewing Publications, 2001 (first printing 1991).
Report of Joint Fighter Conference: NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope 1C:Maddox can use it.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Thu January 29 2004 at 06:34 AM.]

MachineII
01-28-2004, 12:23 PM
I have compiled some information on P-38 characteristics and performance. The purpose of this thread is to help provide the 1C:Maddox Developers of the P-38 add-on to have an idea of what the airplane should be capable of.

Hopefully, this information will be helpful to them and allow them to tweak the model to meet the expectations, based in reality, of the fans awaiting for its arrival.

Having said that, this is not a "my plane is better than your plane" thread. If you have a source, and data, feel free to add it to the discussion. A discussion, by the way, infers that you consider what others have to say prior to responding. Let's try to keep the conversation the P-38, also. While some comparisons must be made, we don't need to run the rabbit down about the developmental history of some other airframe.

Again, the purpose is to provide some solid data, inferences, and suggestions on how the P-38 should behave IN FB.

Thanks.

Alright, I ran across this article some time ago...it's quite good and tailored to the type of thing we are talking about here. The source list at the bottom of his page (click the link) is a who's who of P-38 information.

http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"P-38 details: data and information pertinent to virtual modeling"
by David C. Copley, last updated 23 Sep 2003

This article attempts to abridge and consolidate a number of P-38 references that contain important data and information pertinent to modeling the the P-38 for flight and combat simulation.

My complete reference listing may be found at the end of this page. Primary references include private correspondence with former P-38/F-4&5 pilots, the book America's Hundred Thousand, the P-38 Pilot's Manual, period and contemporary videos.

Ground Handling
The P-38's front wheel was a caster and was not directly controllable by the pilot. Steering was accomplished by differential throttle and braking. The pilot's manual stressed the former over the latter, to conserve brakes.

I have observed the ground handling in a number of period and contemporary videos, and it appears that the aircraft was easily controlled around corners and through taxiways using the aforementioned techniques. I was surprised to see that the turning radius was quite tight for its size.

Take-off
With zero wind and a hard, dry surface, a minimally-loaded P-38H/J/L could take off in a very short distance: 900ft. Minimum take-off distance for earlier Lightnings was approximately 1,400 ft. A fully-loaded J could take off in 1080 ft under the same ideal conditions. Of the USAAF fighters, only the P-40E had a shorter take-off distance with full load (1070 ft), and it was about half the weight of the P-38J!

Some sources suggest pilots regularly used flaps for take-off, other sources suggest they only did so when a short take-off was necessary. The pilot's manual suggests normal take-off is performed WITHOUT flaps, but up to 1/2 flaps may be used for short take-off.

Observing a video of a restored L, I timed a take off on a hard, dry, modern runway. With the propellers at full RPM and brakes on, the pilot released the brakes and was airborne in about 11 seconds. It took 7.5 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 70 mph. The gear took approximately 7 seconds to retract.

The aircraft would lift off the runway between 100 to 110 mph, and required very little effort to pull it up in the air.

Climb
Once airborne and "clean" (gear retracted, etc.), many pilots said that the the P-38 would climb like a "homesick angle."

The early P-38s could climb from sea level to 20,000 ft in about 8 minutes. Later variants (H+) could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. The original design goal was six minutes.

Flaps
Fowler flaps were part of the initial design.

The MANEUVER setting was introduced in mid-production of the F model (F-15). The MANEUVER setting pitched the flaps down 8 degrees and were often used for take-off and more importantly, combat, to decrease turning radius. Thus, this setting of the main flap system was sometimes called "COMBAT" flaps.

When the flaps lever was moved beyond the MANEUVER setting, the flaps would roll back on rails while also increasing pitch. Thus, the flaps were really a two-part, or hybrid design: 1) conventional hinged flap, and 2) Fowler.

Besides the MANEUVER setting, there were to two other automatic settings: "UP" "DOWN." By manually adjusting the flaps lever, the pilot could also set the flaps anywhere between.

Hydraulically boosted ailerons ("power steering")
Until the J-25 and L/M, it took quite a lot of "muscle" to roll the plane as its speed approached or exceeded 300mph. The late models (J-25 and on) had hydraulically boosted ailerons.

Dive-recovery Flaps
Dive recovery flaps were developed to mitigate compressibility during high speed dives. The P-38 was one of the first planes to encounter this phenomenon. Dive recovery flaps became standard equipment from the J-25 on. Some earlier J's were retrofitted with these flaps.

Dive flaps were positioned on the underside of the outerwing, just outboard of the engine nacelles. When deployed, a powerful electric motor would push one end of the flap, causing the flap to fold outward along a hinge. From the side, the dive flaps have a "V" profile.

In the manual, it states that the dive recovery flaps deploy in less than 2 seconds. When demonstrated on a video with the aircraft on the ground and stationary, I timed their deployment at 1 second. One would expect a slightly increase in deployment time in flight, due to the opposing force of the moving airstream. Pilots reported that when deployed in level flight, the nose would "pop up" very quickly, followed by a steady decrease in airspeed.

Typically, the dive-recovery flaps were deployed just before entering a dive. I have observed period film taken from P-38 gun cameras that suggest pilots could dive straight down for several thousand feet and still recover by deploying these flaps.

These flaps are NOT the so-called "COMBAT" flaps. See section on Flaps.

Roll
Generally, roll rate increases with speed. In early models, up to and including the J-20 production block, this trend held true until about 300 mph. Beyond 300 mph, roll rate became more of an issue of pilot strength, as the increasing force required on the control wheel required a lot of "muscle." Beginning with J-25, hydraulic boost allowed faster roll rates at speeds beyond 300 mph.

Between 250 mph and 300 mph IAS, the rates were similar for both earlier and later models, and were approximately 70 - 80 degrees per second (4.5 - 5 second roll).

Turn
Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the
FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed.

Acceleration
The P-38 had perhaps the fastest linear acceleration of all US propeller planes during WW2 (This was true to for all variants for their respective times) . For example, starting at sea level at 250 mph and applying COMBAT power the P-38L's linear acceleration was 4.13 ft/s2 (1.26 m/s2), whereas the P-51D's linear acceleration was 3.85 ft/s2 (1.17
m/s2).

Cruise and Range
Typical combat radius for the J/L variants was 275 miles for 410 US gallons of fuel (no external tanks) and 740 miles with 740 US gallons (external tanks). These ranges allowed for 20 minutes combat at target and 30 minutes of reserves.

Landing
With full flaps, "over-the-fence" speed was about 110 mph, flare at 80 - 90 mph.

Armament
From the E model on, most P-38s were equipped with four 0.50 caliber machine guns (up to 500 rounds per gun) and one 20 mm cannon (up to 150 rounds). The original design called for a 25 mm cannon, and very early models had a 37mm cannon.

The 0.50 caliber machine guns fired at 800 to 900 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 2,550 to 2,840 ft/sec. The effective range was 300 yards. All 2000 rounds could be fired in over 33 seconds.

The 20 mm cannon fired 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,920 ft/sec and effective range range of 1,200 yards. Continuous firing duration was 15 seconds.

The L and M were produced equipped with Christmas-tree style rocket launchers. Some Js and earlier models were retrofitted with the Christmas-tree launcher. Bazooka-style rocket launchers (triple-tube cluster) were also known to have been fitted to the fuselage.

Loads
The empty weight of the J model was 12,780 lbs compared to the YP-38, which weighed 11,196 lbs. A nominally-loaded J, with guns, oxygen equipment, trapped oil and trapped fuel, etc. weighed 14,100 lbs. With the pilot, ammunition, fuel, and useable oil, the J weighed about 16,200 lbs on take-off.

The very early P-38s (prototype and prove-design) could carry 400 - 410 gallons of fuel internally. Beginning with the D, internal fuel capacity decreased to 300 gallons. When the intercoolers were moved to the enlarged "chin" internal fuel capacity was restored to 410 gallons.

Engine Power Ratings
Variant Military Power Combat Power (WEP)
XP-38 &YP-38 1150 HP ea. n/a
P-38F & P-38G 1325 HP ea. n/a
P-38H 1240 HP ea. 1600 HP ea.
P-38J & P-38L 1425 HP ea.(some references state the L Military Power was rated to 1475 or 1500) 1600 HP ea.(some references list L WEP at 1725, but it is believed that this was obtained at higher rpm's and higher boost pressures than the std 3000 rpm, 60 in.)

Cockpit
Unlike most fighters of the time, all variants of the P-38 had a control "wheel" rather than a "stick." In early versions, it was literally a 3/4 wheel. Later versions had more of a yoke, as might be commercial and general aviation aircraft today.

The Lightning's panel layout was notoriously complicated. Gauge arrangement changed seomwhat from variant to variant. Early models had separate RPM and MANIFOLD PRESSURE gauges for each engine (i.e. Left RPM, Right RPM, etc.). Later models had single (but dual-needle) gauges for each function (i.e, dual-needle L&R RPM in single gauge, etc.).

Cockpit heat was a recurring problem and a major pilot complaint until the L model.

The canopy hatch opened to the right on earlier models (XP-38 through early F) and to the rear on later models (later F through M)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, from that data (And the books I have cited at the bottom) we should be able to draw some REASONABLE conclusions on the envelope on FB.

* Out-accelerate a Mustang...and most other fighters.

* Roll faster than a P-47 (~4.5-5 seconds @ 250 mph), about the same as a P-51 or LAGG.

* Climb rate is going to be VERY GOOD (excellent to 5,000 feet then slightly dropping off through 15,000 and then drastically through 25,000). AHT (citing the Joint Report, NACA, and USAAF data) states that with NORMAL power a P-38J/L @ 17,500 (that's the Gross weight for full internal fuel (2,490lbs) and ammo (712lbs)has a rate of climb of ~3,300fpm. Now, that same weight with WEP is 3,700+ fpm. But, let's FB it. Who flies in a DF @ 100% fuel? Well, you're a n00b. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif With 25% fuel on board (626lbs...more ammo than fuel!) the weight drops to 16,875lbs and climb performance should increase correspondingly. A sustained climb to 5,000ft @ 3,900fpm is not unconceiveable in FB with a P-38 w/ 25% fuel. Just an aside...the P-38K, never produced, would have had a climb rate of 5,500 fpm.

All weights are +/- 200 lbs dependent on pilot weight, test equipment, etc.

* Be faster than almost anything else (prop) in the game below 5,000 feet. The P-38J/L can pull 333mph/536 kph (343/552 with WEP) at Sea Level. Now at altitude it's no slouch: ~362mph/566kph (~380/611 with WEP) @ 10,000. You can, of course go higher, but most FB combat is 3,000m and below.

* Turn radius is gonna suck...P-47ish. But hey, it can't be WORSE. However, comparitively, the P-38's turn radius decreases the faster it goes. At high speeds (280+), the P-38 can (and did) out-turn a Zero's (w/ maneuver flaps and such). But while still the most acrobatic USAAF fighter (in terms of allowable manuevers in the Pilots
Manual), we're still taling BnZ. But, that's the USAAF tactic anyway...more on that later.

* Firepower? Unequaled. The LAGG comes close but only has two 12.7's and two 7.62's in the nose. So, like that but much more deadly. No convergence is gonna be a killer at LONG ranges. Fine with me. And 33 seconds of .50 fire time is just silly. Good silly.

* Fuel? Just like the P-51. Never more than 25%. Long mission? 50%.

* Payload? Tons of options. Up to 4,000lbs of ordnance. Impressive. But it's important to remember that everything that got strapped on the P-38 was an afterthought. The plane was A2A designed and developed. When it came to straffing, pilots ranked it dead last of USAAF types due to its susceptibility to ground fire. So, yeah, it's a dandy attack plane, but it SHOULD be a better fighter.

* Compressibility will be interesting. Actually. I cannot put it better than P38Online ( http://p-38online.com/dive.html ):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A typical dive of the P-38 from high altitudes would always experience compressibility. Starting from 36,000ft., 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, compressibility effects should begin @ 445mph/716kph @ ~10,000m...of course that airspeed is higher at lower altitudes. This doesn't mean the plane falls apart, or for the most part is uncontrollable (at first). Just that you begin to embark on a course toward very bad things happening. Below 5,000 feet it shouldn't be nearly the
problem it is at high altitude. This is ONE of the reasons the P-38 did poorly in the ETO (and complexity, and training...see the link below) as the 8th AF forced it to operate at high altitudes the plane had not done previously. This is ALSO why the P-38 did VERY well in the MTO and PTO where the plane was able to operate at moderate altitudes and warmer temperatures. Most of the problems with the P-38 involve things other than flight
performance characteristics. But, check the link I have included at the bottom, it's a great study.

* Taking hits is gonna suck every square inch of the P-38's fue****e is packed with goodness. On the bright side, the traditional spot where there is fuesalage is conveniently empty. A head on pass from a P-38 was viewed as suicidal by Luftwaffe pilots (Bergurand cites a few) because your staring through unconverged fire and the front is all armored and engines. The rear, bottom and top are altogether a different story. Pretty vulnerable. However, the sides, well depends on how good you are. Perry Dahl of 475th FG "Satan's Angels" has a story:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One day I was flying and I was watching a flight of Zeros and waiting for them to attack: They were trying to maneuver to get around to the sun. I was watching them intently when I saw this flash out of my peripheral vision. There was another Zero, twenty yards off off my other wing pounding at me. I didn't have time to do anything so I just threw that engine up into him, and he just shot the bejeezus out of it. I just threw that engime up and let it take all the hits. I kept everything at full power and I just screamed for the deack and went home. After all of the cooling ran out of the right engine, I shut her down and went home on the other engine. In a single-engine he would have had me. I got home with eighty-four holes in the airplane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quoted in Fire in the Sky by Bergerund (Great Book!).

Strategery

Best bet? Stay fast. Altitude won't be a problem either. Down low you can be fast. Up high you can be fast. Part of the problem with compressibility was that the airplane tended to pick up speed very quickly in even slight dives (heck, it's 17,000lbs of airplane).

The USAAF rule was no climbs in combat exceeding 30 degrees and keep your speed above ~300mph. That's not a problem at any altitude for the Lightning. But it was also VERY frowned upon to get in a turn fight, also.

Here's the link I referred to above:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

My particular sources, must haves for anybody who wants to have intelligent conversation about this stuff, are below. However, there is nothing wrong with owning AHT, even if you don't like USAAF stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Also, the Bodie book is VERY well written and quite a good read.

America's Hundred Thousand, Francis H. Dean, Shiffer Publishing, 1997.
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Warren M. Bodie, Widewing Publications, 2001 (first printing 1991).
Report of Joint Fighter Conference: NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope 1C:Maddox can use it.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Thu January 29 2004 at 06:34 AM.]

chris455
01-28-2004, 12:57 PM
Machine,
Awesome, simply awesome post. This is the way to do it and get it right.

PS "Fire" was a great read, what?
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

MachineII
01-28-2004, 01:02 PM
Didn't like "Fire in the Sky"?

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-28-2004, 01:06 PM
I thought I gathered somewhere that with the fowlers the turn was actually pretty good.

nice read!

Korolov
01-28-2004, 02:33 PM
Thought that NACA did a test between the P-63 and P-38, and found the P-38 being equal in turn with it.

And the P-63 was a better turner than the P-51 and P-47.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
01-28-2004, 02:46 PM
The Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 rated the P-38L worst out of all U.S. fighters in all-around stability, all-around fighter above 25,000 feet, all around fighter-bomber, dive-stability and cockpit. (from Amercica's Hunderd Thousand, page 605,606)

A family friend who was a mechanic in the PTO said the running joke was, "The P-38 is a great plane in the Pacific except it doesn't have enough room to turn around."

Maybe these opinions where remnants of the early encounters with enemy single engined fighter? The P-38 certainly proved its worth in the Pacific and did valuable work in the ETO.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-28-2004, 02:48 PM
I think there is a huge difference in turn WITH and WITHOUT combat flaps.

I too have read many stories, reports, etc., that have the P-38 out-turning smaller more nimble planes.

Check this out:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Col Mark Hubbel took over the 20th on 17 March. He believed P-38
excellent fighter against Luftwaffe and proved it by promptly shooting
down 2 Me-109 and sharing a third with his wingman. He may have downed a
fourth Me-109 which he was seen pursuing as it streamed smoke in a dive.
He was last seen chasing yet another Me-109, this time through the door
of a church. Neither planes nor church survived the encounter.
During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found that at the link below, a HEAVEN for all things P-38...of course, like all "forums", caveat emptor. But, by and large, interesting.

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

To all the Spitfire faithful, it's just a neat story...and it suggests the P-38, with a SKILLED pilot, was no less nimble than anything else.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Thu January 29 2004 at 06:37 AM.]

MachineII
01-28-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The Joint Fighter Conference in 1944 rated the P-38L worst out of all U.S. fighters in all-around stability, all-around fighter above 25,000 feet, all around fighter-bomber, dive-stability and cockpit. (from Amercica's Hunderd Thousand, page 605,606)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. Those comments mirror the above stuff. Just a note: instability means an airplane is harder to fly (well...requires more attention), but it can also be said that unstable planes tend to be more aerobatic (well, duh). Just interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A family friend who was a mechanic in the PTO said the running joke was, "The P-38 is a great plane in the Pacific except it doesn't have enough room to turn around."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't doubt the statement is true...but I also wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that the P-38 was a HUGE fighter (almost TWICE the weight of a P-51). And just the expectation that it was supposed to handle that way...?
OR that it taxied poorly?! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-28-2004, 04:39 PM
If memory serves america's 100k also said the p63 was second only to the fm2 wildcat in turn - making it one of the best turning fighters period - and that it's roll rate was second to none.

The challenge for Oleg, modeling the 38 - will be to give it it's full range of possibilities - clearly it had a great instantaneous turn (cloverleaf) and could get a leg up on most planes if the pilot had the not inconsiderable skill needed to make it go.

ElAurens
01-28-2004, 04:49 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Amazing post Machine. Thanks.

Good, concise information. Let's hope that it reaches the intended target....

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

faustnik
01-28-2004, 04:52 PM
Yeah Nagual, it's here on page 603:

Minumum Turn Radius:
FM-2 - 12.0 (Index No. ???)
P-63A-9 - 14.9
P-61B-1 - 16.0
F6F-5 - 16.5
P-51D-15 - 21.5
P-38L - 24.6
P-47D-30 - 24.7
F4U-1D - 25.4

So, according to this we already know how the P-38 will turn in FB, just like the P-47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

ElAurens
01-28-2004, 05:17 PM
I'm wondering if the turn times for the P38 are with the combat flaps deployed? it almost looks like that is not the case. Does your info say anything about it?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Korolov
01-28-2004, 06:07 PM
HOLY COW! The Black Widow is THIRD??!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
01-28-2004, 07:40 PM
The ranking I listed was for no flaps. I don't think is actual turn time. It is listed as an "index number" or relative turn time.

It states in the text below that the P-61 was know for good turning ability but, that it was very slow to roll into the turn.

***************

Even if the P-38 is roughly equal to the P-47 in turn, that is not saying it was all bad. If you look at IL-2 Compare, you will see that the P-47D-10 has a turn advantage over my Fw190A8. That is if you care about that silly turning stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

chris455
01-28-2004, 08:02 PM
Clarification, I thought "Fire in the Sky" rocked.
Will probably read it again when FB Pacific gets ready to launch.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Korolov
01-28-2004, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The ranking I listed was for no flaps. I don't think is actual turn time. It is listed as an "index number" or relative turn time.

It states in the text below that the P-61 was know for good turning ability but, that it was very slow to roll into the turn.

***************

Even if the P-38 is roughly equal to the P-47 in turn, that is not saying it was all bad. If you look at IL-2 Compare, you will see that the P-47D-10 has a turn advantage over my Fw190A8. That is if you care about that silly turning stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is, the faster you go with a Lightning, the heavier the controls get. Will make BnZ a dangerous proposition; controls will probably be extremely heavy at high speeds.

But then again, the whole idea is to bounce someone unaware and run away - so maybe it won't be that hard.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
01-28-2004, 09:23 PM
Well..if you stay below 3,000m you really shouldn't have any problems. If you stick to the deck and keep your speed up you ought to make life interesting, too.

Also, the gun placement made it really easy to hit stuff...so one pass should do. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Heck...you can probably start firing at twice what you would in a P-51 or P-47.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

roachclip
01-28-2004, 09:26 PM
You all inderstand that you will have to replace your current joystick. The P-38 used a wheel/yoke.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MachineII
01-28-2004, 10:15 PM
The Cougar Yoke Adapter....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-29-2004, 12:56 AM
Great post! And best of all its constructive and unbiased. It showed the good and the bad of the P-38 so I expect no flame wars here. (Thank goodness) I cant wait to fly her http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If all post concerning aircraft flight modeling went like this Oleg might start responding again. Lets hope.
=S=

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

MatuDa_
01-29-2004, 02:22 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
If memory serves america's 100k also said the p63 was second only to the fm2 wildcat in turn - making it one of the best turning fighters period - and that it's roll rate was second to none.

The challenge for Oleg, modeling the 38 - will be to give it it's full range of possibilities - clearly it had a great instantaneous turn (cloverleaf) QUOTE]

The cloverleaf was not instantaneous turn, it was "riding the stall" as described above. That takes a lot of pilot skill and experience and has nothing to do with sustained turnrate or inst. turnrate.

Anyways I'm eagerly awaiting to fly this baby http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I just hope it will have historical dm, fm and armament options, not uber and not under. I wonder if compressability will be modelled, it can be as it is in b1.

very informative post, thx machineII

ElAurens
01-29-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
HOLY COW! The Black Widow is THIRD??!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing isn't it? The P61 used fullspan spoilers instead of ailerons. (Well it had small "tickler" ailerons to give the pilot some feel) these spoilers afforded the black Widow some amazing capabilites for such a large aircraft. It was ahead of it's time, and in many ways pointed toward the next generation of aircraft developement.

When entering service in the Pacific more than a few IJN and IJAAF pilots got the suprise of their (much shortened) lives when they attacked what they mistakenly thought was a medium bomber...

And, variants produced very late had top speeds rivaling the P51... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Bogun
01-29-2004, 01:20 PM
According to the Russian report of real late P-38 vs. Yak-9D encounter over Yugoslavia in November 1944 as described in the book "Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon, Yak-9D were not able to outmaneuver late P-38 in horizontal plane due to mechanization of the wing of the P-38 (not exact wording, book is at home). P-38 was not able to follow Yak-9D in vertical plane of maneuver.

I think, though, that Machine's estimation of P-38 climb is somewhat optimistic...

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

Gibbage1
01-29-2004, 02:11 PM
Very good stuff. I have been in tight contact with Oleg about the P-38. ITs been give and take, but he is willing to hear what we have to say about this bird. I will make sure he gives this thread a once-over. Lots of good data here. Does anyone have the roll rate chart were the L beats the FW-190 at high speed rolls?

Huckebein_FW
01-29-2004, 02:14 PM
I'm quite impressed Machine! Good overall presentation, emphasis on data not myths, balanced view. I did not verify the data, but on first read seems correct.
Well done.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MachineII
01-29-2004, 04:05 PM
Cool, Gib!

This is the only roll-rate chart I have and it's for UNBOOSTED P-38's:

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/Images/p-38rr.jpg

Peak roll rate is 77 degrees per second (4.7 seconds) @ 300mph.

"Installing an aileron power boost ystem, as Lockheed did in late models, substantially raised roll rate values on the "down" side of the curve by hydralically boosting the pilot's muscle a considerable amount. Unfortunately data on the boosted system performance is not available." -AHT, Pg. 144.

SO, in FB speak, despite the lack of data, it should translate into a less severe downward curve with boosted ailerons....

Bogun,
Thanks for the comments. Would you please explain how I am being optimistic? I am not trying to flame you, but if you have data that says otherwise let's see it.

Everything above, except for my estimations based on reduced fuel, equates to this chart Climb Rate Graph (AHT). I may have been optimistic concerning the climb rate with reduced fuel, but I admitted that was an estimate.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/Images/p-38cr.jpg


http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Thu January 29 2004 at 03:27 PM.]

faustnik
01-29-2004, 04:31 PM
So about like this?http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

please check.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-29-2004, 04:59 PM
Looks right to me.

I imagine w/ boost that slopped bit is shallower.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Gibbage1
01-29-2004, 05:36 PM
The chart I am tihnking matches that, but has the L model in it. The roll matched the J till about 380 and then the L started to roll better then the J and contenued till 500KPH were it peaked above the FW-190, and then came back down, but always above the FW-190

SkyChimp
01-29-2004, 05:43 PM
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/3.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/4.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/5.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

MachineII
01-29-2004, 05:59 PM
BAM!

A finer collection of P-38 info I have yet to see.

1C:MADDOX...READ!

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Gibbage1
01-29-2004, 06:05 PM
Be sure!

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

A finer collection of P-38 info I have yet to see.

1C:MADDOX...READ!

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
01-29-2004, 11:29 PM
Are my eyes deceiving me? The P38L-5LO is faster than the P51 at almost all altitudes in WEP? And no slouch at military power either....

Gents that is amazing....

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

IKNO
01-30-2004, 12:07 AM
Unbelievably thorough, informative and entertaining. Clearly, one of the best posts ever presented.

As a fan of Bong, McGuire -- and, yes Charles Lindburg, who unofficially bagged a few during his stint as a PTO "consultant" -- I can't wait to fly a '38. Hope Oleg and 1C read this and do their best to adhere to it.

S!

BlindHuck
01-30-2004, 03:15 AM
It's late, I have no referances with me at moment. I seem to recall reading a first hand discription of Ta152H initial roll performance as torture. "Push stick over and pray you're not hit while waiting for roll to accellerate, though it wasn't as bad as P-38." Couldn't have been all that bad though, don't think the German pilot ever flew P-38. McGuire went down turnin' with a (insert correct Jap aircraft name here) while holding on to drop tanks, of all things.
Turn ability sounds pretty damn good in experienced hands while the physics of a pair of engines off roll center could prove a challenge in starting or, especially, reversing roll.
I can hardly wait! Really. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"I race full real exclusively in IL2:The Forgotten Battles." - Mark Donohue

SpinSpinSugar
01-30-2004, 04:32 AM
I'm looking forward to the P38, as with any twin, I always find those things fun to fly.

Not wishing to knock anything here as it's all valuable, but it's happened before and will happen again... I'd rather trust the informed judgement of the warbird pilots 1C has contact with than lots of soulless facts and figures of aircraft performance in optimal non-combat environments. Especially when people start jumping up and down as "their" plane doesn't perform to the absolute theroetic maximum of it's envelope. They rarely did.

I know these things are valuable, but they are not the be-all and end-all. From following these boards, generally, the best test-condition stats are available for the US aircraft (witness all the excellent diagrams on this thread), often (but not always) coupled with those of captured aircraft flown by those unfamiliar with type which (today) have few surviving or directly comparable documents.

I hope the P38 is as true to life as technology allows, real front-line war life, not back-home-in-America-on-a-sunny-day life. "Stats don't lie". Well, actually without context quite often they do. Everything with a pinch of salt.

It's all good stuff, along with the pilot accounts, but it's only part of the picture. I can understand why Oleg is cautious enough not to believe every bit of paper thrust under his nose. And this sim is the better for it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SSS

WhiskeyRiver
01-30-2004, 05:32 AM
Does anyone have turn rates listed for the -38. Rate of turn is more important than radius to me.

Turbocharged aircraft like the P-38 and P-47 should lose power at a slower rate than supercharged aircraft as altitude increases. A turbo can sustain a certain boost level up until the intake temps get too high and cause detonation in the engine or the compressor wheel comes apart from an overspeed condition. A supercharger, even multi stage like the Merlin's or DB605's, wil eventually lose boost pressure and power as altitude continues to increase. This is because supercharger compressor rpm is dictated by engine speed while Turbo rpm is completely variable. It is controlled by the wastegate. Of course There is an rpm and boost window for any compressor, known as the "island", where a compressor is most efficient and thus gives the most flow for the lowest temperature. Of course turbochargers are much more difficult and expensive to build that superchargers. Compressor wheel rpm's can exceed 160,000 rpms. They also require exotic materials such as tungsten or inconel(nickel/stainless steel alloy) to resist the high temperatures they encounter.

Big intercoolers like the -38's can reduce air temperatures at cost of poor throttle response. Bigger intercoolers mean that the turbo has a larger volume of air to pressurize. This isn't a problem with aircraft since engine rpm's stay fairly constant. This also shows up most noticeably on the bf109's DB series engines. Although they were supercharged, the DB series engines used a hydromechanically driven supercharger much like an automotive torque converter. When the throttle was opened engine rpm's would increase but supercharger rpm's would lag behind because the fluid in the torque converter had to be accelerated thus accelerating the supercharger. A mechanical valve that was sensitive to ambient air pressure controlled fluid pressure in the torque converter allowed for variable boost although not from the cockpit. They valve is set to open and increase boost once a certain outside barometric pressure is reached.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

HamishUK
01-30-2004, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I'm looking forward to the P38, as with any twin, I always find those things fun to fly.

Not wishing to knock anything here as it's all valuable, but it's happened before and will happen again... I'd rather trust the informed judgement of the warbird pilots 1C has contact with than lots of soulless facts and figures of aircraft performance in optimal non-combat environments. Especially when people start jumping up and down as "their" plane doesn't perform to the absolute theroetic maximum of it's envelope. They rarely did.

I know these things are valuable, but they are not the be-all and end-all. From following these boards, generally, the best test-condition stats are available for the US aircraft (witness all the excellent diagrams on this thread), often (but not always) coupled with those of captured aircraft flown by those unfamiliar with type which (today) have few surviving or directly comparable documents.

I hope the P38 is as true to life as technology allows, real front-line war life, not back-home-in-America-on-a-sunny-day life. "Stats don't lie". Well, actually without context quite often they do. Everything with a pinch of salt.

It's all good stuff, along with the pilot accounts, but it's only part of the picture. I can understand why Oleg is cautious enough not to believe every bit of paper thrust under his nose. And this sim is the better for it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SSS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry SpinSugar but the alleged warbird pilots Oleg speaks to speak for themselves. The P47 roll rate has not been addressed, the Hurricane is a flying lorry (which it definitely is not I can assure you). I would take data charts over a pilots preference anyday. Having worked at the R.A.F.s 34 OCU a pilots input is taken as information, but from alleged warbird pilots who may have last flown the bird 60 years ago this data would be inconclusive.

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves as the data presented more than shows identicle information across the board.

Anyway I doubt very much that Oleg has spoken to every warbird pilot who has flown each and every one of the birds in FB. If he has he will probably have only spoken to a handful in each which still would not constitute to an expert opinion on the matter and should not be taken as read.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

SpinSpinSugar
01-30-2004, 06:59 AM
HamishUK, I don't seem to have any problems flying and fighting with the Hurri, but that aside, if you read my post I'm not saying opinions should be taken over test data, I'm saying that test data is just that. Test data. Smallprint : conditions may vary.

What gets me down on this board is the almost religeous fervour some folks apply to lines on graphs that can only ever be an INDICATOR of front-line aircraft performance. If EVERY plane in this sim had been tested in EXACTLY the same way in EXACTLY the same conditions and all the data collated then yes, that would be just grand. But, they weren't. "My plane should be 10km/h faster than it is in the Sim", blah de blah.

I should be able to better Mach 0.91 in a controlled dive in a Spitfire V according to test data, but I wouldn't want to try it in a combat situation. Nor would I ball my eyes out if I couldn't do so in FB, when it arrives.

It's all useful. As I said, I'm not knocking it, it's all valuable input. When applied to fighter squadrons out on the front, gospel it isn't. Hell, this applies in both directions, things were done to airframes that shouldn't have been, and they still survived.

Just my tuppence.

SSS

MachineII
01-30-2004, 07:05 AM
SpinSpinSugar,

We don't really have the "feelings-based" sim technology down yet. But when we don't need numbers anymore, we'll give you a call.

You're arguing that "word of mouth" is a valuable source of data. Sorry...it's hard to take you seriously. Whether you like it our not, the information presented in this thread is the best that can be provided on performance.

Also, your "test's are not accurate" argument is silly. Sure, there are variables, but remember these are the same variables that effect all test data used in all aircraft. You can expect that error to work across all aircraft and be something you can ignore.

AND when was the last time FB's environment didn't represent a PERFECT test site? You forget we're not talking about the most complex of environments in terms of pressure, wind, equipment,etc. So, in reality, test data providesa VERY accurate picture of how an aircraft performs in FB.

Now, if you would BOTHER to read the thread you'd know that the information comes from multiple sourse, some NACA, some Lockheed, some COMBAT.

People with no facts make me sad.

Oh, and thank you for taking this thread off topic, too. I wanted to have a couple posts about test methodology and value. GO start your own thread for this stuff.



http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Fri January 30 2004 at 06:14 AM.]

[This message was edited by MachineII on Fri January 30 2004 at 06:15 AM.]

SpinSpinSugar
01-30-2004, 07:16 AM
As do people who completely miss my point in favour of needlessly taking offence. But hey, no worries. And yes, I have read this thread in it's totality, yes, I think it's valuable and yes, it's great work. *sigh* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oh well.

As to your last point, yes, I apologise for taking it off topic! I'll crawl back under my rock now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
01-30-2004, 09:53 AM
I updated the roll chart with the P-38L.

When did the P-38L first see combat in the ETO?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-30-2004, 10:29 AM
June '44 on.

Sort of...there were only three or four FG's left and I think only one of them got P-38L's (I thought it was the 55th...but it might have been the 20th). But they only got a handful of them. The USAAF was using them predominantly in the PTO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The decision to replace the P-38J in the 8th AF with the P-51, rather than the P-38L, meant that the 8th never got to exploit the full performance and combat potential of the P-38.

Capt. Heiden makes some further interesting observations.

"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/8thAF1.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Fri January 30 2004 at 09:39 AM.]

faustnik
01-30-2004, 10:56 AM
So, do you think the P-38L a legitimate ETO a/c or more of a Ta152-like insignificant type?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

VW-IceFire
01-30-2004, 11:25 AM
Well we've got the MIG-3U which was used in even less numbers so the L is perfectly legitimate. This is also only a list for the 8th Airforce. What about the 9th Airforce? I was under the impression one of their fighter groups was still flying P-38's on VE Day.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

MachineII
01-30-2004, 12:08 PM
Well, there WERE P-38L's in the ETO. At least an FG+.

Good point about the 9th AF...they took over tactical duties from the 8th AF. AND the DID have P-38L's. The 474th FG had them and were active in the ETO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In early 1943 there were formed, at Eglin Field, Florida, two new experimental units called the 1st Minimum Altitude Bomber-Torpedo Unit (MABTU) and the 2nd Minimum Altitude Bomber-Fighter Unit (MABFU). The MABFU was equipped with the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. From this Unit the Cadre was drawn to form the 474th Fighter Group which was activated at the Army Airdrome (Grand Central Air Terminal) at Glendale, California on August 1st 1943. The three Squadrons trained, although not always on the same airfield, in Southern California and on the Central Coastal area of California. In January of 1944 they began preparations for overseas deployment. The Group entrained on February 15th, 1944 and traversed the country to Camp Myles Standish at Taunton, Mass., arriving on February 21st. By the 28th of February they were aboard the SS Uruguay troopship and on their way to Europe. The crossing, in convoy, required 11 days and ended with debarkation at Liverpool, England. On March 12th they moved, by train, to their first Station at Warmwell, Dorest, on the Southern Coast of England. They shared the grass field with an RAF Typhoon Squadron and an Air Sea Rescue Unit. In April of 1944 the 474th FG became the first P-38 equipped Group to join the 70th Fighter Wing of the IX Tactical Air Command of the 9th Air Force. Intense training and orientation followed and the Group was declared "Operational" on April 24th, 1944. They flew their first Combat Mission on April 25th, 1944. The 474th considered itself fortunate in that they flew the Lockheed P-38 Lightning throughout the war. They were the only Group in Northern Europe flying the P-38 at war's end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Bogun
01-30-2004, 12:14 PM
"In late July 1944 the first P-38Ls arrived in UK. The only significant difference between this model and late P-39Js was their improved V-17110-111/113 engines, incorporating refinements to overcome the weaknesses highlighted in the previous winter. For all practical purposes, its performance was the same as the J. When this model become available for combat units in August, only the 479th Group still retained fighter p-38s in 8th Air Force and replacement were mostly low-hours P-38Js turned in by the units that recently converted to P-51s. The few P-38Ls reseived by 8th Air Force included one for evaluation by Operational Engineering at Bovingdon, and those fitted out for photographic or special radar work..."

Source:
The Mighty Eight. Page 186.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

Korolov
01-30-2004, 12:40 PM
There was a P-38L unit that exsisted in the battle of the bulge, so yes it is a legitimate ETO A/C.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
01-30-2004, 12:52 PM
Did all the L's have boosted aelerons? Bogun's quote has me confused.

BTW, "legitimate" was a bad choice of words, of course it belongs in the complete planeset. What I meant was, should I be designing missions for the ETO with the P-38L included as a regular?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
01-30-2004, 01:14 PM
All L's had boosted aelerons, and also dive brakes. The J's were also retrofitted to have these options. So even if there were no L's in ETO, there were J's with dive brakes and boosted aelerons.

P.S. This is not a ETO only game. So that matters not. There were PLENTY of P-38 L's in the PAcific and MTO fighting Zero's, Ki-84's and IAR-80's and guess what? We have Zero's, Ki-84's and IAR-80's!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Did all the L's have boosted aelerons? Bogun's quote has me confused.

BTW, "legitimate" was a bad choice of words, of course it belongs in the complete planeset. What I meant was, should I be designing missions for the ETO with the P-38L included as a regular?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
01-30-2004, 01:25 PM
Question. When did the J enter service? I think in 1943, as the L is 1944.

Bogun
01-30-2004, 01:26 PM
By that time 8th Air Force was fed up with the engine problems with P-38 and wanted to faze them out in favor of the P-51. They also needed aircraft which could operate without difficulties at altitude above 25000 feet, witch P-38J could not. Dive flaps were so unreliable that 479th replaced the only two of theirs P-38J with flaps on two without flaps.

But there were others 9th and 15th Air Force which continue to receive later P-38L and they there flying over Europe Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

Gibbage1
01-30-2004, 01:34 PM
In my P-38 book, it says "By November 1943, deliveries of painted P-38J's came to an end. Unpainted P-38's were 60 pounds lighter". So they were delivering P-38 J's before November 1943. Making the J a 1943 aircraft. Cool. I think it will do well in 1943 servers. A P-38 H would kick much *** in 1942 servers. Nothing would catch it.

Bogun
01-30-2004, 01:34 PM
First P-38J arrived in UK in November 1943.
During January 1944 20th and 55th Groups rapidly converted to P-38J.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

MachineII
01-30-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
By that time 8th Air Force was fed up with the engine problems with P-38 and wanted to faze them out in favor of the P-51.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a bit more complicated than that. And it wasn't the engines, it was turbo's and oil coolers freezing up. AND if you read the correspondance in the 8th AF as compared to the 9th and 10th there's some politics involved. But the end result is the same; the 8th AF leadership wrote it off and wanted P-51's.

I refer you to the link below.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Deliveries of the P-38J commenced in August, 1943, however, the P-38J-25 did not arrive until July of 1944. Too late to affect 8th Air Force thinking as the die had been cast in the ETO and the 8th began to phase in the P-51B and C from early 1944. The P-38s were gradually shifted to the ground attack and Flak suppression roles, where their superior payload radius performance easily outclassed the single engined types.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

J-25's were VERY close to being L's. In fact, I think they were but for the aileron boost kits that had to be installed.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
01-30-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
In my P-38 book, it says "By November 1943, deliveries of painted P-38J's came to an end. Unpainted P-38's were 60 pounds lighter". So they were delivering P-38 J's before November 1943. Making the J a 1943 aircraft. Cool. I think it will do well in 1943 servers. A P-38 H would kick much *** in 1942 servers. Nothing would catch it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cept the H didn't arrive till 43, nor did the G. You get Es and Fs in 42. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
01-30-2004, 08:30 PM
F's are quite cool.

Kinda necessary for early PTO and MTO servers if you ask me.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

A.K.Davis
01-30-2004, 08:32 PM
P-38J as a 1943 aircraft is really pushing it. I know that if a few were delivered in 1943, it will become a 1943 aircraft for the online crowd, but it really should be considered a 1944 aircraft as far as it's operational impact is concerned.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Gibbage1
01-30-2004, 08:46 PM
Every aircraft in the game has the date of its first aircraft in service. Not when it started making a differance. If that was the case, no Luftwaffa aircraft would even have a date since they had no impact http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But again, this is now a GLOBAL sim, not just a Eastern or Western front. The J was in large numbers in the Pacific before Europ got any. But it was used in 1943, and thus a 1943 aircraft.

A.K.Davis
01-30-2004, 10:37 PM
You misunderstand Gibbage. By "operational impact" I am not making a qualitative judgement. Nor is this some sort of LW vs. USA pissing thread. If you want to host a server depicting representative air combat 1943 ETO, then the P-38J might not be the best choice. Even though the P-51B became operational at the very end of 1943, I would say the same thing. It's impact was in 1944. "1943" servers that include the P-51B and P-38J will present a somewhat scewed impression of air combat during that year.

There are several aircraft in the game that typically get lumped into the previous year when a more accurate portrayal of history would place them in the subsequent year. For example, Fw-190A4 and Bf-109K4 are also aircraft that saw their operational impact in the year subsequent to their introduction.

Also, theatre and location plays a role. For example, while the years of introduction are correct on the P-40E and P-39N, I believe their operational service on the Eastern Front was in the subsequent years. A whole year is too broad anyways. In the ETO, early-1943 was a very different operational environment than late-1943.

That's why when I host a server, I usually do the OOB by YEAR, SEASON, and THEATRE. For example: Summer 1943, Eastern Front.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Korolov
01-31-2004, 12:19 AM
Problem is, DFs are hardly even close to reality, no matter what you do. People will go where their favorite planes are, and thats that.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
01-31-2004, 08:20 AM
The year seems to represent a COHORT of similar aircraft. The P-38J is a 1943 aircraft. It was delivered in '43. It saw combat in '43. It's comparitive to other '43 aircraft.

I don't think you can draw an arbitrary line and say: "Oh, well, that plane's '44 because that's when there was more tha X flying." We're back to the sufficiency of population argument. You can just pull most planes in the game then...

Initial entry date makes the most sense for the whole sim. If not for "historical" reasons than for putting aircraft of equivalent capability and technology up against each other.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

A.K.Davis
01-31-2004, 10:43 AM
The difference of opinion lies between those who are looking for historical experiences, and those who focus solely on competition. I'm sure it's impossible to reconcile the two.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

MachineII
01-31-2004, 04:10 PM
FYI. Critical altitude for a P-38 was supposed to be 16,500ft. Hence a lot of the issues when it was pressed into service by the 8th AF at 24,000+ft.

But it wasn't for lack of horsepower...more like oil coolers and turbo's freezing up:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The pre-J models could maintain sea-level power up to 25,000 ft., where
intercooler limitations began to reduce power. The J/L models could maintain
sea level power up to 30,000 ft., where turbo impeller speed limitations began
to reduce power. In neither case was power reduction sudden or dramatic.
(Incidentally, the turbocharged P-47 could also maintain sea level horsepower
up to 30,000 ft.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Sat January 31 2004 at 05:28 PM.]

ZG77_Nagual
01-31-2004, 06:00 PM
Great thread - and I stand corrected on the cloverleaf - though the dive flaps supposedly pitched the nose up real fast - clearly I was wrong on the CL maneuver - which makes sense now that I actually thing about it!
This will be an interesting one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
01-31-2004, 06:00 PM
The P-38 will have some awesome firepower with the concentrated .50s and 20mm. It should also be able to use that firepower more effectively than the Bf109 or Fw190. As a 190 pilot, I am constantly frustrated by the muzzle flash of the cowl guns. The P-38s nose guns are mounted lower relative to the gunsight, and should not have the same problem.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
01-31-2004, 06:18 PM
Here's a good comparitive quote from one of the links I mentioned earlier (the really long one in my third or fourth post about the Spit v. Lightning):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even during the war, the P-38, P-47 and P-51 each had adherents who argued the
favorable points of each, sometimes quite vehemently, and, obviously, the
arguments continue today. Capt. Jim Tapp was training supervisor of the 78FS
of the 21FG temporarily based at Bellows while it transitioned from P-47s to
P-51s. One day, he was flying a P-47 in company with two P-51s when they were
bounced by two P-38s. "They ended up chasing each other in a circle with the
performance pretty equal. I had the P-47 wide open and was turning inside all
of them, but they seemed to be making two circles to my one. The P-47 would
have done better high up, but even at altitude the 47 wasn't a match for the 51
or 38."
Later, the P-47 adherents challenged the P-51 buffs to a race. A P-47D-26
belonging to the group CO, Col. Beckworth, was stripped of bomb racks, gone
over with extra care by the ground crew and waxed till it shone. Capt. Tapp
grabbed the first available P-51D he could sign out. The duo met up over Kaena
Point at 30,000 and headed for Bellows. When the P-47 was at full throttle and
full rpm, Tapp asked, "Is that all you've got?" When he received an
affirmative, he opened the Mustang's throttle to "full goose bozo" position and
simply ran away from the Jug. Tapp was back on the ground sipping a Coke when
the Col's. P-47 touched down.
In a mock dogfight between the Mustang and the Lightning, the skilled P-38
driver would fight in the vertical, taking advantage of his superior climb
speed and aerobatic ability. The skilled Mustang pilot would attempt to extend
away and come back unobserved. Once either locked onto the tail of the other,
it would be very difficult to shake. The P-38 driver in such a situation would
want to work the speed of the engagement down into the stall area where the
Mustang couldn't follow him. He could also split-S, dive and zoom, probably
losing the P-51. The Mustang pilot with a P-38 on his tail had fewer options.
At high altitude, he could point the nose at the ground and keep it there till
the the Lightning dwindled, then zoom climb into a fast, shallow climb to
extend away.
Interesting that the twin-engine fighter would have the advantage in a slow
turning contest, or in the vertical--loops, split-Ses.
What would typically happen if a Mustang bounced a Lightning would be that the
P-38 would split-S, the Mustang would follow through the roll but keep on
diving for some distance before pulling out, then circle around for another try
at a bounce. The Lightning pilot would continue the split-S up into a loop and
scan the sky for the Mustang. Typically, he would spot him some distance below
beginning a pull out. The Lightning driver would finish the loop and fall on
the climbing Mustang, locking onto his tail. The smart Mustang pilot would
reduce the chance of this by rolling out of h is escape dive into a climb in a
different direction. He might do a corkscrew climb. The "winner" of the
dogfight would be the pilot who better kept sight of his foe, who better
anticipated what his foe would do next, and who knew what to do with his own
airplane to counter that anticipated move; in other words, the better pilot
won--not the airplane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-31-2004, 06:19 PM
P38 article, long but good (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)

MachineII
01-31-2004, 06:24 PM
And one on the clover-leaf:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's
exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The
pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let
the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....
Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked
something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.
No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43
and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best
theP-38 could do.
In Europe, the first quadruple kill in one combat by the 8AF was scored by 2Lt.
James Morris of the 55FG on Feb. 8, 1944. He traded head-on passes with a pair
of FW 190s then turned and got on their tails while they were turning trying to
get on his. He easily outturned them and shot them down. Another FWs 190
broke away and tried to run. Morris overtook him and shot him down. Then he
tangled with an Me 109 which tried to outdive him. Morris fell on him like a
cast-iron stove.
Capt. Robin Olds while flying alone when he was bounced by two FW 190s. He
outturned them and shot both down.
In a scrape with the vaunted II/J.G. 6, Capt. Lawrence Blummer of the 367FG
shot down five FW 190s. He was part of a melee that began when 40 FW 190s
bounced 12 P-38s straffing an airfield and the Lightnings' top cover of 12
bounced them in turn. The German pilots claimed 11 Lightnings (seven actually
went down) and the Americans claimed 20 FWs (16 actually went down). The
German unit was so badly mauled that it was withdrawn from combat.
The P-38 was a complex aircraft, and required time in the cockpit to learn to
operate it well, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, there was very little it
could not do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

MachineII
01-31-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah...that's what I'm basically incrementally cut/pasting here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

MachineII
02-01-2004, 11:49 AM
BUMP

At least until I know someone @ 1C:Maddox has at least seen it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
02-01-2004, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't count on anyone from 1C looking at all this...

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
02-02-2004, 10:31 AM
If it stays at the top, they'll see it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P-38 should be a big but, not easy target!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
02-02-2004, 12:38 PM
Yup. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Have some hope Korolov...think positive waves. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
02-02-2004, 12:50 PM
You're asking a whirlybird pilot to think positive? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-02-2004, 01:04 PM
I thought whirlybird pilots had to think positive as a matter of course!?!

Autorotation!?! Yeah, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
02-02-2004, 06:08 PM
No, we have to think negative - you never know what will go wrong next in a chopper. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-03-2004, 07:41 AM
Ah...well...this is a fixed wing sim. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh, also, Faustnik posted some turn-rate rankings earlier (page 1, I think) those numbers are for a "clean" configuration. AHT also admits that the P-38 with its combat flaps at 8 degrees would do MUCH better in that ranking.

Just a corollary.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

jurinko
02-03-2004, 08:53 AM
Morale in 55FG plummeted, and numerous pilots aborted missions claiming
mechanical problems--giving the a/c type a bad rep for mechanical
unreliability, although u/s reports reveal that in most cases the ground
crew could find nothing wrong with the aircraft. In many instances the
ground crews hinted that the pilots were merely cowards. In one u/s
report, the pilot had aborted the mission because he claimed the piss tube
was too short and he could not use it. The ground crew chief wrote in his
report: "Piss tube to spec. Problem is pilot's **** is too short."

Bogun
02-03-2004, 09:30 AM
Here is another example of what was possible while flying P-38, also it would be wery hard/impossible to reallize without separate throttle control for each engine:
----------------
...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.
----------------

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

Read the whole article - it is great!

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

[This message was edited by Bogun on Tue February 03 2004 at 08:56 AM.]

[This message was edited by Bogun on Tue February 03 2004 at 08:56 AM.]

MachineII
02-03-2004, 11:16 AM
Nice quote Bogun...

There's a lot of stuff about how complex the airplane was. n00bs got killed in it because their training in twins was lacking and the P-38's complexity had a huge learning curve. In early models you'd fly with as mny electrical systems off (only one generator that tended to fail when over-loaded)as possible and the plane set for max cruise. If they got jumped they had to do all the engine stuff, twice, and turn on the guns and reticle and such...there was one case where, I think, a 190 ambushed a bunch of P-38's and took out two or three while they were trying to get their settings right.

But, as your quote points out, it was a plane that rewarded those who knew how to use it.

Jurinko, the 8th AF pilots were freezing to death on their high-altitude missions. They'd come up with excuses up to and INCLUDING letting a 109 get on their tail so they'd be forced to evade to lower altitude and warm up...at least, that's what I have read. No, the plane did not make a good high-altitude (24,000+) escort. But then again, all of its successes were in warm weather (MTO, PTO) areas where it was more then a match, when flown well, for anything.

But, as usual, it's the pilot, not the plane. Right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Tue February 03 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

WhiskeyRiver
02-03-2004, 12:41 PM
Lockheed fixed the cockpit heat problem with the introduction of the L model. By then of course the 8th AF had gotten rid of their P-38's.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Bogun
02-03-2004, 12:43 PM
Yeah, I remember reading about complexity of transferring P-38 from normal "cruse" flight mode into the combat mode... One German Fw190 pilot mentioned that few P-38 he jumped did not reacted on any way on his shooting for a few seconds, when it was already too late... That single generatir was another major single point of falure - if engine it was running from seazed - it did not metter that other engine was OK - plane was doomed...

But once in "combat" mode and piloted by competent pilot late P-38 were great! That quote from "Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters" were Russians found Yak-9D not being able to stay in turns with P-38 near the ground was a surprise for me, as I'm sure, it was for Russian pilots. But how this unique flight characteristics of P-38 could be exploited without having separate control for each engine for us in the game?

PS I also wanted to point on P-38 (not the British spec) having right/left rotating engines. On a first take it looks obvious two engines, they have to have opposite rotation, but this is not always the case. Ju-88 engines were rotating into the same side, requiring large rudder to counter rotating moment, introducing a lot of complications on take-of and landing. I think (not sure, though) that Bf-110 also did not have opposite rotating engines negating one of the major advantages of two-engine planes...

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

faustnik
02-03-2004, 01:03 PM
I'm excited to see the Bf110 and P-38 in BF. This thread indicates the P-38 will be interesting. I just can't help but be a little disappointed that the Pe-2/3 isn't part of the same batch.

I was reading a little about the P-38 in the MTO. Was its record that great? It appeared to me that the P-38s never had an easy time against the LW single engined a/c.

Also, does anyone have a cost figure for the P-38L? I wonder if this played a part in the decision to phase the P-38 out in the ETO.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
02-03-2004, 01:06 PM
I heard from a few pilots that the dive RECOVERY flaps did give a quick nose pitch up. They used it in tight turns to get the crosshairs on the target in the critical time, but quickly backed off them for speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Great thread - and I stand corrected on the cloverleaf - though the dive flaps supposedly pitched the nose up real fast - clearly I was wrong on the CL maneuver - which makes sense now that I actually thing about it!
This will be an interesting one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

noshens
02-03-2004, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, does anyone have a cost figure for the P-38L? I wonder if this played a part in the decision to phase the P-38 out in the ETO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be.. two engines surely cost more than one and need 2x more fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MiloMorai
02-03-2004, 01:42 PM
Cost of American a/c.

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm



Long live the Horse Clans.

MachineII
02-03-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was reading a little about the P-38 in the MTO. Was its record that great? It appeared to me that the P-38s never had an easy time against the LW single engined a/c.

Also, does anyone have a cost figure for the P-38L? I wonder if this played a part in the decision to phase the P-38 out in the ETO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say they did pretty well even before you consider the MTO was the first place USAAF ever saw the Luftwaffe and then shut down the air bridge to Sicily...not to mention was a VERY effective mid-altitude escort for B-24's flying out of the MTO. I'd say they were very competitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38s flew air superiority and ground attack missions in the MTO, inflicting heavy damage on the German and Italian air, sea and land convoys attempting to reinforce the theater. The P- 38 was the only US fighter capable of engaging the Bf109G and Fw190A on equal terms, providing escort for bombers well out of the range of the RAF Spitfires. By mid March 1943, the Axis had a force in excess of 500 Ju-52s, Me-323s and SM.82s dedicated to reinforcing the theater. The Allies applied the long-legged P-38 to cut this air bridge from Sicily, some measure of the intensity of this battle can be gauged by three notable sorties. On the 5th April 26 P-38s engaged a convoy of 70 Ju-52s escorted by 24 Luftwaffe fighters, destroying 11 transports and 2 fighters, for the loss of 3 P-38s. On the 10th April, 41 transports and 8 fighters were dispatched, the following day 26 Ju-52s and 5 fighters were destroyed for no loss. The Allied landings in Sicily and Italy saw further successes for the P-38 force, a notable highlight being an Allied convoy escort CAP on the 9th October, during which Lt.Col. W.L. Leverette killed 7 Ju-87 dive bombers, another of his pilots killing another 5 aircraft. It is not surprising that German pilots nicknamed the P-38 Der Gabelschwanz Teufel (the Fork-Tailed Devil).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ANd the P-38 was THE most expensive airplane, and complex, the US mass-produced during WWII. They cost around $115,000 - $120,000 and you essentially were building TWO airplanes. So, yeah, cost almost definitley had something to do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38's Achilles Heel was its high cost: the Army could buy two P-51s
for the price of one P-38. Lockheed had never expected to mass-produce the
design and did not engineer it for easy assembly, unlike the P-51, one of
the chief unsung virtues of which was its ease of manufacture. The P-38
was also more expensive and time-consuming to maintain than single-engine
fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bogun, I think this is the quote we were talking about:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From a letter from the commander of 20FG to 8AF HQ.

And for Gibbage:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster. The dive recovery flaps ameliorated the "compressibility" (Mach limitation) of earlier Lightnings. An added benefit of the dive recovery flaps was their ability to pitch the nose 10-20 degrees "up" momentarily when trying to out turn the Luftwaffe's best, even when using the flap combat position on the selector. Of course the nose "pitch-up" resulted in increased aerodynamic drag, and must be used cautiously. High speed is generally preferred over low speed in combat situations. Properly flown, the Fowler flaps of the P-38 allowed very tight turning radius."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Captain Stan Richardson comments on the slow initial roll rate of the early P-38H and J models deployed with the 8th Air Force.

Got most of the stuff here:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

MiloMorai
02-03-2004, 02:06 PM
Machine look in the link I provided for cost

P-38 varied from $134,284 in 39/40 to $97,147 in 1944.

(Average Unit Cost of Airplanes Authorized, By Principal Model: Fiscal Years 1939 to 1945)

edit: have a wee bit to go to reach year 19844.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

[This message was edited by MiloMorai on Tue February 03 2004 at 01:18 PM.]

faustnik
02-03-2004, 02:13 PM
WOW!

1944
P-38: $97,147.00
P-51: $51,572.00

It made absolutely no sense to produce P-38s, of course they switched. The P-51 was a better plane (sorry Machine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) for less money.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Bogun
02-03-2004, 02:20 PM
Thank you Machine, that was exactly the quote I was looking for.

I also remember SkyChimp posting some info about very late P-38 with even more powerful engines then L and different props. I believe, he mentioned, that it was canceled just because of the cost.

Also, there was an attempt to retrofit few J's with Merlin 61 engines by 8th Air Force.

Now, were can we buy the throttle with separate sliders for each of the two engines?

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

Korolov
02-03-2004, 02:27 PM
Excellent read, Machine. Thats a great site.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MiloMorai
02-03-2004, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:

Also, there was an attempt to retrofit few J's with Merlin 61 engines by 8th Air Force.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup GM(Allison) put that idea to rest real quick.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

MachineII
02-03-2004, 03:10 PM
Cool, thanks for the link Milo, I didn't see it earlier (check out the P-61 price drop!!! must be radar getting cheaper).

Bogun, you're talking about the P-38K which would have had Allisons' of equivalent power to the Merlins' (well ballpark). 5,000+ FPM climb, max altitude of 48,000 feet, and WEP speed of 450 mph. &lt;drool&gt;

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Xp-38k.jpg

Read this, then be sad:
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38props.JPG

I think the best way to configure the throttle would be to use a hat switch for Engine 1 (L), Engine 2 (R), and All engines (U). Then put the dive brakes on a prominant button and combat flaps, too.

Select left engine, drop the throttle, add combat flaps...out-turn bad guy...select both engines, full throttle, raise flaps. BAM! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That might work.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Tue February 03 2004 at 02:18 PM.]

Korolov
02-03-2004, 05:15 PM
Or become real adept with the keyboard. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-04-2004, 07:11 AM
Bump!

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

faustnik
02-04-2004, 10:51 AM
Found an RAF comparison between a Fw190A3 and a P-38F. Here are some excerpts:

Speed:

The Fw190 was superior at heights up to 22,000ft where the tow aircraft are approximately the same. At 23,000 ft it [the P38] is slightly faster.

Climb:
The climb of the P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw190 up to 15,000ft. Above this height the P-38F improves rapidly until at 20,000 ft it becomes superior.

Dive:
Comparative dives between the two aircraft proved the Fw 190 to be better, particularly in the initial stage. During prolonged dives the P-38F on occasion was catching up slightly with the Fw190.

Maneuverability:
The Fw190 is superior to that of the P-38 particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces speed to about 140mph at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn that the Fw190 cannot follow.

The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw190 was found to be better in all respects.

P-38F: Military HP: 1325 Basic Weight: ?

P-38J: Military HP: 1425, Combat HP 1600, Basic Weight 14,100lbs.

Fw190A3 HP Take-off 1700, Basic Weight 7,110lbs

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Korolov
02-04-2004, 11:29 AM
Since the Fw-190A-3 is only marginally different from the A-4, then I guess we can expect the P-38 to suck then, judging by the above report. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

But then again, who knows.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 11:36 AM
Well considering the P-38F was far differant then the J and L that we are getting.

I have been in comunication with Oleg a LOT. Exchanging E-mail with quotes, photo's and a lot of data. From our conversations, the P-38 will be better in almost all aspects to the P-47. It will also turn a little better then the FW-190, but not a 109. But we will see. It can be a deadly aircraft in the proper hands.

faustnik
02-04-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Since the Fw-190A-3 is only marginally different from the A-4, then I guess we can expect the P-38 to suck then, judging by the above report. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Korolov,

As Gibbage pointed out, the above test was for an earlier model than we will be getting. That's why I posted at the bottom that the J had more HP.


Gibbage,

At what speeds are you saying a P-38 will out-turn a 190?

I appreciate your efforts to have it modeled well, but if it ends up being overmodeled, it will quickly become as useless as if it is seriously undermodeled.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Korolov
02-04-2004, 12:09 PM
I think it depends on the 190 model we're talking about here. Against a A-5, as currently modeled, the '38 probably wouldn't have much trouble turning with it. Against a A-4, chances are it will loose. On a A-8, no contest.

I think more important than its ability to turn fight is its ability to make quick turns at high speed for fast deflection shots. Planes like the Fw-190 sure love to snap stall when you try to make a turn too tight at high speed.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-04-2004, 12:22 PM
I think it depends.

There are obviiously ways to make a P-38 out-turn a 190 (asymtric thrust, combat flaps, etc.). If we're just talking "clean" then I don't expect it will.

I would also point out that the RAF had a small grudge against the plane, not saying they nerfed it in the report, but they certainly were not inclined to lavish it with praise after the mess that was the Model 322. Also, as we all know, pilot skill and experience with the P-38 has a lot to do with it...so the particulars of the report are important...but it's not a horrible piece of information or anything.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 12:33 PM
I doubt it will be over-modeled. Its a fight with Oleg and I need to show him 3 forms of proof before he accepts 1. I sent him 4 images of P-38's that have collided with aircraft to make sure the P-38's structure was tough. He said fluke's and probably happened on land. Then I sent him a bunch of photo's of 20Mm, 40MM and 88MM holes in P-38's that made it back. Finally he conceaded that the structure was tougher then he thought. I sent him 3 roll charts before he agreed it could roll 360 in less then 8 seconds. There are other issues like low speed handling I am debating him with, but I have no proof of that other then pilots who say they just waited for the enemy to stall due to torque and pounce on him when he tries to recover. Everything I have read said the P-38 handled EXTREAMLY well at low speeds (but low roll rate) but Oleg wont buy it unless I get more proof. Please, anyone? Dig up some info on the P-38's low speed handling with referances. Not just "I heard a pilot once say" stuff.

P.S. Im not trying to make the P-38 anything it was not. Im making sure it suffers from compressability, and slow initial roll. Also the aircraft was tough, but the engines were not. But every little bit of good info in this thread I pass it onto Oleg. Be sure!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Since the Fw-190A-3 is only marginally different from the A-4, then I guess we can expect the P-38 to suck then, judging by the above report. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Korolov,

As Gibbage pointed out, the above test was for an earlier model than we will be getting. That's why I posted at the bottom that the J had more HP.


Gibbage,

At what speeds are you saying a P-38 will out-turn a 190?

I appreciate your efforts to have it modeled well, but if it ends up being overmodeled, it will quickly become as useless as if it is seriously undermodeled.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhiskeyRiver
02-04-2004, 12:38 PM
Gib,
Thanks so much for your efforts to keep the Lightning from being nerfed. Maybe you could send Oleg the phone number of the owners of one of the restored P-38L's out there. I don't know if there is a way you can "prove" good low speed handling. It's more of feel issue than actual performance numbers. With all that I'll go diggin through my books to see If I can find you some info.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 12:39 PM
I dont know. Oleg just said it should turn better then the FW-190. He did not say what model, what speed, what altitude or what situation or what settings (flaps or not). He just said the P-38 should be better then the P-47 in all respect but damage, and sould out-turn FW-190. Since the P38 is a 1944 aircraft, Im guessing he is talking about an A8, and those things turn like pigs. So its not saying much.

MachineII
02-04-2004, 12:46 PM
Gibbage,

I, and the other Pigs, will look for low-speed handling stuff...dunno what I am looking for but I will find it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You need anything else? I mean, roll-rate, climb-rate, acceleration, max speed...there's plenty of stuff on that...right?

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

faustnik
02-04-2004, 12:50 PM
Machine,

The RAF report states that the P-38 was flown by an "experienced US Army Air Force pilot."

Gibbage,

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. I'm sure you want the P-38 to be modeled correctly.

The RAF test that I posted does mention the P-38's low speed turn being superior to the 190. Maybe it would be a usable reference for Oleg. It is from "Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat" p.52-53 The report is from August 1942 with the testing performed at Duxford. It also mentions that the Fw190A3 engine was not running particularly well during the tests so, might not have been at its optimum.

S!
faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MiloMorai
02-04-2004, 12:53 PM
Well it is understandable that the BMW801 was running rough since the LW had it cleared only for 1.32ata while the RAF was running it at 1.42ata. This would make any tuning problems even worse.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:05 PM
Well the problem is, the owner of the restored P-38L here would like a cut of the money if he is going to help out a paid product with consultation. I dont blame him at all, but I am reluctant to contact him. I have spoken with him before. Im heading out to Chino soon. Maybe I can find him there and just chat a bit, or a vet P-38 pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
Gib,
Thanks so much for your efforts to keep the Lightning from being nerfed. Maybe you could send Oleg the phone number of the owners of one of the restored P-38L's out there. I don't know if there is a way you can "prove" good low speed handling. It's more of feel issue than actual performance numbers. With all that I'll go diggin through my books to see If I can find you some info.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
02-04-2004, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont know. Oleg just said it should turn better then the FW-190. He did not say what model, what speed, what altitude or what situation or what settings (flaps or not). He just said the P-38 should be better then the P-47 in all respect but damage, and sould out-turn FW-190. Since the P38 is a 1944 aircraft, Im guessing he is talking about an A8, and those things turn like pigs. So its not saying much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the old Jug is getting short changed again. U.S. turn figures:
P-38L - 24.6
P-47D-30 - 24.7


And stop laughing at my Fw190A8! It might be a flying brick but, it's a tough brick! And it turns real fast (as long as you don't turn more than 15 degrees). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:11 PM
So far I thing Oleg has roll and speed nailed down. But low speed handling is a blank, and also turn with combat flaps is also a bit of a mystery. If we can get a bunch of pilot story's about stalling other aircraft out in the P-38 that would help support its low speed handling. Currently Oleg thinks that there is no way the 109 would stall before the P-38 would. But at a low speed tight turn, the torque will induce a snap stall before your stall speed is reached.

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

I, and the other Pigs, will look for low-speed handling stuff...dunno what I am looking for but I will find it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You need anything else? I mean, roll-rate, climb-rate, acceleration, max speed...there's plenty of stuff on that...right?

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:13 PM
I agree! 190A8 is a great aircraft! Gobs of firepower, and it takes a few 37MM shells from my P-39 before going down. But the earlier A3 and A4 were more nimble. That was my point. I think an early FW-190 would have a better chance in a turn fight with the P-38 then a A8 would.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont know. Oleg just said it should turn better then the FW-190. He did not say what model, what speed, what altitude or what situation or what settings (flaps or not). He just said the P-38 should be better then the P-47 in all respect but damage, and sould out-turn FW-190. Since the P38 is a 1944 aircraft, Im guessing he is talking about an A8, and those things turn like pigs. So its not saying much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the old Jug is getting short changed again. U.S. turn figures:
P-38L - 24.6
P-47D-30 - 24.7


And stop laughing at my Fw190A8! It might be a flying brick but, it's a tough brick! And it turns real fast (as long as you don't turn more than 15 degrees). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MachineII
02-04-2004, 01:19 PM
I've written the P-38 Association for assistance with regards to data. Plenty of vet's there BTW.

Well, we can put together a bunch of quotes easy I should think...

Faustnik, can't blame a guy for trying w/ that RAF report. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-04-2004, 01:28 PM
Seems like were fighting perceptions more often than we have to these days...from all sides.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

WhiskeyRiver
02-04-2004, 01:36 PM
Icefire, I think it may be because there's a lot of folks who seem to forget that the Pacific theater was fought by land based and carrier based aircraft.

The Luftwaffe and Italian Air Force both got their buts whipped in North Africa. A lot of this was at the hands of the P-38. No one ever seems to mention the North African theater.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Bogun
02-04-2004, 02:03 PM
Gibb,
That article in Flight Journal
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_1.asp
it is all about about P-38 handling...

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

Korolov
02-04-2004, 02:24 PM
I don't know about outstalling a 109, but I think you can be pretty certain the 109 will snap out long before the '38 does.

In any case, not much you can do about a stalling issue, if any. I don't think I expect a 6 ton fighter to have a lower stall speed than a 3 ton one.

Nevertheless, heres a excerpt from P-38 pilot in North Africa, Robert J. Moffatt:

"The P-38 was definately a low altitude fighter. It compared very well with the Bf-109G and Fw-190 even to manoeuvrability in low altitudes, but the manoeuvrability dropped off as altitude increased. We were faster in straight and level flight. The 109G could out-dive us on the initial dive, but we could hold our speed longer. Both 190 and 109G could initially outclimb us, but again we could soon overtake them."

Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa said:

"I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign. Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns in the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of these dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear."

Oberleutnant Franz Stiegler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf-109 with JG 27 said that "[the P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instataneously. 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 armanent was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."

Col. Oliver B. Taylor, commander of the 14th fighter group in 1944, analysed the P-38's effectiveness in the theatre with the following recollections:

"Bad Points

1. Ease of Handling: It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more, to achieve the level of skill which was necessary to realize the full capability of the ship, as compared with what it took with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 or 200 hours could a man hope to be and expert, but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in the 38.
2. Verticle dives: The 38 could not be controlled in a verticle dive if allowed to build up speed, and that happened awfully damned fast, with speed rapidly building up thereafter until something came apart. The Jerry knew this well.
3. Distinctive silhouette: The Jerry, on seeing a lone plane off in the distance, would generally leave it be unless he had absolutely nothing else in prospect at the moment. On seeing the unique P-38 silhouette, however, there would be no doubt at all, and after it he would go, knowing that it would not be a waste of time.

Good Points

1. Stability: The plane could be pulled into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds. This was particularly useful during the dive bombing and strafing runs because the longitudinal axis of the plane remained on the flight path along which we were aiming.
2. Manoevrability: Generally we found the 38 could out-manoeuvre anything else, friend or foe, between about 18,000 and 31,000ft (5,490 and 9,450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss up, except that very near the ground, we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could.
3. Range: A 500 mile (800km) distant target was easily reached allowing for 30 to 45 minutes for possible diversions. Being something less than modest about it, I feel I initiated the first really big step toward extending our escort range, when I prevailed upon out Wing (Gen Atkinson) to let us join the bombers out somewhere near the target area, rather than burn up fuel accompanying them from their bases. This created quite a stir among the bomb group COs, but a foul up helped me convince them.
4. Single engine flight: The 38 was just as controllable turning into, as away from, the dead engine without mishap.
5. Engine configuration: Aside from having another engine to bring you home in case one is lost, the two-engine arrangement provided exceptionally good visibility forward for the pilot, and provided protection from flanking enemy fire, especially during low-level strafing runs.
6. Rugged construction: The 38 could take a phenomenal amount of beating up and still make it home. One [flown by Lt. Thomas W. Smith, 37th Squadron] was hit by a Me-109, one wing of the 109 having slashed along the inside face of the right boom, carrying away the inside cooler and slicing the horizontal stabilizer/elevator assembly in two. The 109 lost its wing and crashed. The 38 flew 300 miles (480km) on one engine to belly land on my order at our base. The pilot wanted to try the wheels, but figured he had gone far enough in disobeying two previous orders for me to bale out."

All the above quotes are taken out of "P-38 Lightning" by Jeffrey L. Ethell.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-04-2004, 02:35 PM
Nice post! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 03:00 PM
I have video of a P-38 being shot up by 109's (Oleg says 190's) and the P-38 pulled up EXTREAMLY tight and the two aircraft fallowing it could not fallow at all. Not even close. Im going to send Oleg these quotes from BOTH US and German pilots. I think the German pilots comments will be a little bit more perswasive. We will see.

faustnik
02-04-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have video of a P-38 being shot up by 109's (Oleg says 190's) and the P-38 pulled up EXTREAMLY tight and the two aircraft fallowing it could not fallow at all. Not even close. Im going to send Oleg these quotes from BOTH US and German pilots. I think the German pilots comments will be a little bit more perswasive. We will see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage,

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. If you go out of you way to search only for comments claiming the P-38 was superior, you will be providing Oleg with a very narrow view of the P-38. It was a good, fast, heavily armed fighter but, was it an agile dogfighter at over 7 tons? You get what I'm saying?

From "America's Hundred Thousand" P.159

"How 1944 service pilots rated P-38L in maneuverability: Of 28 flight evaluators only two rated it good, ten said fair, while the others gave it a poor rating. The P-38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick "snap" or "slam-bang" maneuvers, and had particularly slow initial response in roll due to a high lateral inertia characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll and thus an inability to switch quickly from on attitude to another, as in reversing from a turn in one direction to one in the other. As one pilot said "It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel over hard, and just have the P-38 sit there. Then after it slowly rolled the five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat producing."


I don't know of any other FB planes that have increasing roll rates? Right now they seem to all have a stitic rate of role. I wonder if Oleg can model this with the FB engine?


*******************

By the way, thanks to all the P-38 fans in this thread for not getting pissed-off as I play the role of devil's advocate. If all FB forum threads went like this, the place would be a lot more fun.

S!

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

MachineII
02-04-2004, 04:16 PM
Faustnik,

For what it's worth:

AHT's comments all come from the Report On Joint FIghter Conference (Patuxent River, '44). Get a copy...it's an awesome read. But, it's important to understand that there were 51 people there (20 contractors, 15 Navy, 9 Army, and 7 British). They were comparing allied aircraft to each other. These are NOT P-38 pilots, or at least not the vast majority of them...and the purpose of the test meet was to compare all the US/UK and even an Oscar (I think) to each other. So, these guys flew each one and wrote conclusions. And they're good comparisons.

BUT we also know that the P-38 has a VERY steep learning curve...so whether or not a quick flight in one by an F6F pilot demonstrates its combat potential is debateable.

I don't mean to say that what you quoted is wrong, I just think there are degrees. The P-38 WAS NOT uber...it's very real. But when you read the information you see that the people who had to fly it MORE LOVED it. Those who just hoped in didn't like it at all, and that's EXACTLY what you get out of the Report.

And I'm glad you're playing devil's advocate, keeps us honest.

w00t, page 7.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
02-04-2004, 04:57 PM
Well, like any pilot accounts, you have to take them with a grain of salt.

But with three pilots, all from different nationalities saying the 38 turns good, makes it hard to say that they were all biased.

The fact that the P-38 was one of the USAAF's highest scoring aircraft in the pacific also suggests that it was no slouch.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
02-04-2004, 05:50 PM
If I'm not mistaken the P-63 was flown by several different guys at the conference - with reviews ranging from 'not a fighter' to 'if it only had a bubble canopy it'd be the best of the lot'.

I only hope Oleg can approach modeling the 38 accurately - it is a complex bird!

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Wed February 04 2004 at 05:07 PM.]

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 06:32 PM
Tis OK. I like the feedback. Its much better then the typical blanket statement we would get from the Luftwaffa Twins of "Its American, so it sucked" or "The He-177 had a lower stall speed, so the P-38 sucked" and yes, that was an actual comparison from one of them.

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

By the way, thanks to all the P-38 fans in this thread for not getting pissed-off as I play the role of devil's advocate. If all FB forum threads went like this, the place would be a lot more fun.

S!

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 06:44 PM
The important thing to remember about the "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference" is that pilots were often evaluating aircraft for the types of things we never consider in sims (cuz we're not really flying). Things like safety, comfort, ease of control, etc. For example, if I recall the P-38 did not receive a generally unfavorable evaluation because it was 5mph slower than the P-51 at X altitude, or because it turned X degrees slower than the Zero. The P-38 was not particularly well-liked by the test pilots because it had an overly complex, unergonomic cockpit, poor search view, and certain negative control aspects (some stability issues and pilots did not like the "boosted" aelirons).

These evaluations were of course in relation to the aircraft the pilots had experience in, but were in no way the opinions of inexperienced noobs who didn't know better. Most of the pilots present likely had many more hours flying than the average combat pilot of the time, many of them in combat or rigorous testing conditions.

Here is a very important quote from Lt. Halaby, one of the conference attendees:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think it is rather interesting that no one has mentioned here the fact that both the Army and the Navy have on paper specifications regarding stability and control. And to me it's indicative of the whole trend that the pressure of military requirements have put on the airplance. That the P-38, for example, or the P-51, the original Mustang and in either case built for the British, the Lighting and the Mustang, from the time they were first built until the latest version, the P-38L and the P-51D, there ahs been no improvement in stability or control. The P-38 has resorted to an artificial device--the boosted aeliron--to get light forces and high rates of roll. It seem to me that we can get good rolling velocity without that device. Moreover, the weight of the P-38 has increased 3,000 pounds and the cockpit has gotten lousier and lousier, and more and more uncomfortable and you can see fewer and fewer guages. The P-51, by admission of the British and the Army, and North American itself, has gotten to be a less nice flying airplane and yet those two airplanes are doing the workhorse work and are winning the war. I feel that they are doing it by quantity rather than by quality."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Halaby, a combat pilot, places less emphasis on raw performance than on stability, comfort and control. This is his evaluation of quality.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 07:01 PM
I might as well reproduce the Joint Fighter Conference Report information on the P-38 since I have it on hand. First, the data sheet for the P-38 at the conference:

General Data

Model: P-38L-5-LO
Airplane: 44-25077

Engine: Allison V-1710-89 (RH rotation)/Allison V-1710-91(LH rotation)

Take-off Power
Blower--turbo
BHP--1,425
RPM--3,000
MAP--54
Alt.--SL

Normal Power
Blower--turbo
BHP--1,100
RPM--2,600
MAP--44
Alt.--32,500 ft.

Military Power
Blower--turbo
BHP--1,425
RPM--3,000
MAP--54
Alt.--26,500 ft.

Combat Power
Blower--turbo
BHP--1,600
RPM--3,000
MAP--60
Alt.--26,500 ft.

Maximum Cruise-Auto Lean
Blower-turbo
BHP--795
RPM--2,300
MAP--35
Alt.--36,000 ft.

Propeller--Curtiss Eletric
Dia.--11' 6"
Blades--3

Loading--full internal fuel and ammo

Gross Wt. (Lbs.)--17,488

Power loading (T.O.)--6.15 lb./HP.

Wing loading--53.5 lb./sq. ft.

Fuel (Gal.)--426

Oil (Gal.)--12

Armament:
1-20mm. cannon.
4-.50 cal. guns.
150 rds. 20mm. ammo.
1,200 rds. .50 cal ammo.

Radio:
SCR-522.
SCR-695 A.

General features: Speed restrictions posted in cockpit. [and I can't read them off photo in report]

*also, I should note that this P-38L-5-LO was equipped with a standard gunsight, not the K14.

faustnik
02-04-2004, 07:57 PM
Well, those numbers are not that bad. The Fw190F8 was very similar, it had:

Gross Weight: 9700 lbs.
Take off HP: 1700
Power Loading 5.71 lb/HP
Wing Loading 49.24 lb./Sq. ft.

The wing loading for the P-38 is higher than I thought.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 08:01 PM
P-38L Evaluation

Flown by:
Army-1
Navy-9
British-5
Contractor-13

Cockpit
Good-2
Fair-1
Poor-11
Other-13
Blank-1
Total-28

remarks: Yoke hides instruments-10. Complicated-3. Strong gasoline smell after rolls-1. Controls inaccesible-1. Crowded-1. Instrument panel and windshield too far away-1. Many switches could not be reached with harness locked--including auto override switches-1. Position of tabs poor-1. No landing gear position indicator-1. Comfortable and quiet-1. Visibility not too good-1.

Comfort
Good-9
Fair-4
Poor-5
Other-7
Blank-3
Total-28

remarks: Cabin roof too low-4. Crowded-3. Noise level good-1. Fair except visibility; all I couls see were engines and boom-1. O.K. except have to duck to see up-1.

Ground Handling
Good-21
Fair-2
Poor-0
Other-4
Blank1
Toatal-28

remarks: Good like most tricycles-1. Taxis nicely--good control and vision-1. Throttles too long and far apart for good directional control-1. Brakes very soft-1. Lot of brakes required to overcome nose wheel-1.

Power Plant Operation
Good-16
Fair-0
Poor-1
Other-10
Blank-1
Total-28

remarks: Smooth and easy-6. Controls well placed--operation simple-3. Tendency to oil up under 800 revolutions per minute-1. Auto controls worked perfectly-1. Elimination of mixture and pitch controls would make power plant operation extremely good-1. Noticed raw gas fumes while maneuvering-1.

Take-off
Good-10
Fair-0
Poor-0
Other-14
Blank-4
Total-28

remarks: Long-5. Aileron snatch in air with wheels down-3. Very easy-7. Straightforward-6.

Approach and Landing
Good-8
Fair-4
Poor-0
Other-9
Blank-7
Total-28

remarks: Straightforward, very pleasant-4. Excellent landing and ground roll-2. Ailerons too sensitive-2. [Ailerons]Heavy-1. Trimming necessary and trimmer rather inaccessible-1. Weak lateral effectiveness-2.

Wave-off
Good-6
Fair-2
Poor-0
Other-3
Blank-17
Total-28

remarks: Good with two engines-1. Couldn't be used on carrier-1. Elevator trim tab too awkward to relieve trim change-1.

Bail-out
Good-2
Fair-1
Poor-12
Other-3
Blank-10
Total-28

remarks: Easy emergency release--no awkward projections except yoke over knees-1. O.K. as as far as actual egress from cockpit-1. O.K. upside down-1. NG--would hit stabilizer-1. Dangerous-1.

Combat Qualities
Good-3
Fair-0
Poor-1
Other-13
Blank-9
Total-28

remarks: Bad visibility to sides and down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific-1.

I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its maneuverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat-1.

As a fighter-bomber--good; for fighter sweep--just fair; as escort--poor-1.

Good due to: (1)engine reliability; (2)altitude performance; (3)good accelerated stall; (4)versatility; (5)dive recovery flaps, which make prolonged zero-lift dives possible-1.

Apart from very queer ailerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air-1.

An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present-day Jap fighters. View is poor--too many struts in way. Rudder makes aircaft very hard to maneuver in first flight-1.

Too complicated and full of gadgets--would make unserviceability rate very high-1.

Query on maintenance and operation problems with liquid-cooled engines in hot climates-1.

Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat-1.

Record speaks for itself-1.

Stability

Longitudinal: [good--fair--poor/positive--weak positive--neutral--unstable]
Climb 4--0--1/5--3--4--0
Level 5--1--1/5--0--5--0
L/C 2--1--0/2--1--2--0
General 0--0--0/0--0--0--0
remarks: Positive, but slow-1.

Lateral:
Climb 6--0--0/5--1--3--1
Level 5--1--0/5--1--2--0
L/C 3--1--0/1--3--1--0
General 2--0--0/0--0--0--0
remarks: Unstable due to aileron boost-1. Did not like boost ailerons, especially at take-off; feeling of being in slipstream-1.

Directional:
Climb 5--1--1/4--3--2--0
Level 4--1--0/4--2--2--0
L/C 3--2--0/1--1--0--1
General 2--2--0/0--0--0--0
remarks: Slow to damp out-1. Good roll inducer-1. Slow-1.

Controllability

Elevators [good--fair--poor/high--moderate--light]
Force 6--2--0/6--1--4
Effectiveness 16--0--0/0--1--0
General 5--0--0/0--0--0
remarks: Normal-3. Nice curve-1. Excellent-1. Sluggish-1.

Ailerons:
Force 4--0--0/0--0--19
Effectiveness 14--1--0/0--0--2
General 3--0--0/0--0--0
remarks: No feel-1. Too light compared to other control forces-1. Too much related to other controls-1. Ailerons snatch-2.

Rudders:
Force 2--0--0/16--3--1
Effectiveness 10--5--0/0--0--0
General 1--0--0/0--0--0
remarks: Too heavy, especially for jinking at high speeds-1. Easy to overbalance-1. Very nice with change in speed-1.

Trimmability
good-12
fair-4
poor-0
other-8
blank-4
total-28

remarks: Little trim change necessary for change in speed-3. Bad tab locations-3. Aileron trim would help-1. Balance of three controls not good-1. Can be trimmed for all flight conditions, inclusive of one-engine operation-1.

Maneuverability
A-2
B-10
C-13
D-1
other-0
blank-2

Night and instrument flying
A-1
B-7
C-6
D-1
other-1
blank-12

remarks: With boost ailerons, bad; otherwise excellent-1.

Gun Platform Rating
A-2
B-13
C-6
D-2
other-0
blank-5

Diving Characteristics

[good--fair--poor/high--moderate--light]
Acceleration 6--2--0/3--0--1
Stick Force 8--0--0/4--2--2
remarks: Ailerons light, elevator moderate, rudder heavy-1.

[good--fair-poor/fast--moderate--slow]
Recovery 8--0--0/0--0--0
General 0--0--0/0--0--0
remarks: Dive flaps make recovery effortless-4. Excellent at 410 [mph] IAS-1.

Stall Characteristics--IAS [mph]
Clean power-off: avg.--90, range--80-95
Clean power-on: avg.--100, range--95-115
L/C power-off: avg.--80, range--70-98
L/C power-on: avg.--84, range--75-100
Accelerated 3G: avg.--170, range--170
warning: Good buffet, shudder. Buffet. Loss of aileron control. Drops nose. Elevator shudder.
recovery: normal all conditions-4. Very easy, except clean with power on--1.

MachineII
02-04-2004, 08:24 PM
I was gonna scan those later A.K. but it's probably clearer transposed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yes, comments on the planes are scattered all over the place. Generally there's a majority...but the planes are being reviewed by individual pilots who all have their own individual styles. And while they are NOT n00b's by any account, they're still NEW to the P-38 which counts for something. Especially when you consider the quality of training for twin-engined fighter pilots was poor.

Being a single engined fighter pilot is going to carry prejudices to a multi-engined craft (prop, of course). The bail out rating is a perfect example. I've read many places that the perception of a dangerous bail-out hounded the P-38, but the reality of it was never proven. I guess either it's true and you just don't know because nobody survived or, as Lockheed insisted, it wasn't a problem. Just an example.

It's still good stuff.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Wed February 04 2004 at 07:41 PM.]

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 08:42 PM
Statements from the report:

Lt. Col TOUBMAN:"They have a J and an L-5 model P-38 airplane available for the conference. I just looked at it this morning and the J-25 has dive flaps and the L-5 also has that. The Allison 1710 engine is in there and they are not fitted up with water as yet. We have manifold pressure regulation on both the J-25 and L-5 and that is the Minneapolis Honeywell control system. One point to notice on that boost aileron is that you will not turn your boost aileron on or off in flight; we had a little trouble on the P-38 hydraulic system, so if you contemplate using the boost ailerons, turn them on the ground and leave them on in flight. The dive flaps controls is right on the wheel and it quite a novel sensation which is like compressibility. You can overpower it very easily by pushing forward and you practically come down in a saw tooth dive...On the turbo control you have a Minneapolis Honeywell system. You can not overspeed the turbos and there will be no turbo indicator in the cockpit..." [p.26]

Commander RAMSEY: "...I would like to ask Major Lamphier, before he gets out of our hands again, to say a few words about thie P-38 which flew minus part of its wing."
Major LAMPHIER: "That was not I flying that P-38. It was a cohort of mine. We were strafing a destroyer and went in a little too closely. It tore the star off the wing back into the aileron and it bothered him so little he was about to make another pass before we quit. When he came to land several people raced ahead to tell them to prepare for an emergency landing, bu he just came in and landed it and so I guess they are stable enough with half the wing on."[p.134-135]

In the comparison evaluation questions the P-38 scored:

1st in "Worst cockpit" category with 55% of the vote.

3rd in "Best ailerons at 350 MPH" with 19% (1st=P-51, 2nd=F4U1).

The P-38 did not do particularly well in any of the other categories.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

SkyChimp
02-04-2004, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:

The P-38 did not do particularly well in any of the other categories.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the individual card for the P-38, some pilots had very favorable comments regarding certain aspects.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 09:50 PM
No sh*t Skychimp, I just reproduced the individual report above in it's entirety. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As noted, I was referring to the overall comparison evaluations divided into categories of aircraft qualities.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

MachineII
02-04-2004, 10:22 PM
Also, as far as the Fighter Conference Report goes, it's helpful, ALSO, to look at the P-38 in comparison to the other planes too...just helps to put in context is all.

AK, thanks for taking the time to post all that.

Some quotes:

The source is http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html , an archive of soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Yeah, it's the internet, and I have tried to pick quotes that either directly address what we're talking about or can be verified.

This is/was a board frequented by veterans who flew the P-38:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Incidentally, Bob Vrilakas, who, as Blue Flight Leader, 94FS, on this mission,
played a major role in the fight, has participated in discussions in r.a.m. in
the past, and may lurk in this newsgroup.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there are other references to vet's posting or close relatives.

For what it's worth...

Roll
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38 did not want to roll at all when aileron force was first applied
(inertial resistance), so there was a heartbeat of hesitation, then the
plane would very sluggishly begin to roll. This sluggishness persisted
through about 10 degrees of roll, after which the rate of roll became very
good; in fact, with the aileron boost of the later J and L models, the
faster the plane was going, the faster the rate of roll, giving the plane a
terrific advantage in high-speed maneuver combat.
The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat.
The P-38 was splendidly maneuverable and had an excellent rate of climb
and rapid rate of acceleration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knoke is a 109 driver...not sure which one here (F or G?).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the WHOLE quote on the "clover-leaf":
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The cloverleaf was a horizontal maneuver that took advantage of the P-38's
exceptionally gentle stall characteristics. It was a low-speed maneuver. The
pilot would tighten his turn until he actually stalled out, ease off and let
the plane unstall itself, then tighten back up into a stall, ease up....
Viewed from above, the pattern the airplane flew through the air looked
something like a cloverleaf, and this simile was used in teaching the maneuver.
No German fighter could stay with the P-38 in a turn.
Of course, this manuever was useless against Japanese fighters like the Ki-43
and Zero, because they stalled out something like 30 mph slower than the best
theP-38 could do.
In Europe, the first quadruple kill in one combat by the 8AF was scored by 2Lt.
James Morris of the 55FG on Feb. 8, 1944. He traded head-on passes with a pair
of FW 190s then turned and got on their tails while they were turning trying to
get on his. He easily outturned them and shot them down. Another FWs 190
broke away and tried to run. Morris overtook him and shot him down. Then he
tangled with an Me 109 which tried to outdive him. Morris fell on him like a
cast-iron stove.
Capt. Robin Olds while flying alone when he was bounced by two FW 190s. He
outturned them and shot both down.
In a scrape with the vaunted II/J.G. 6, Capt. Lawrence Blummer of the 367FG
shot down five FW 190s. He was part of a melee that began when 40 FW 190s
bounced 12 P-38s straffing an airfield and the Lightnings' top cover of 12
bounced them in turn. The German pilots claimed 11 Lightnings (seven actually
went down) and the Americans claimed 20 FWs (16 actually went down). The
German unit was so badly mauled that it was withdrawn from combat.
The P-38 was a complex aircraft, and required time in the cockpit to learn to
operate it well, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, there was very little it
could not do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More Cloverleaf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was not a common maneuver, but a sort of last ditch hole card. Gerry
Johnson, ops exec of the 49FG used it to break contact with a Ki-44 he was in a
rough one-on-one with on a mission to the oil refineries of the DEI in the fall
of 1944. As he told it, he had fought the Tojo from 24,000 ft. down to the
deck, where it had latched onto his tail. He didn't dare straighten out and
try to run, because it was too close. He couldn't dive. He was forced to try
to out-turn it because he didn't have anything else to try. He started
clover-leafing and, to his great relief, the Tojo was unable to stay with him
and broke off contact, whereupon Johnson, master fighter pilot that he was,
turned the tables on the Tojo and shot him down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for fun...well...not "fun":
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>During the second Philippines campaign, some P-38 pilots heard a desperate
pilot calling on the radio in a voice on the edge of panic: "I'm losing
coolant! What should I do?" Assuming he was a new Lightning pilot with little
experience, they called back and told him to relax. Just feather the prop and
he'd get back okay. There was a moment of silence, then he responded, "Feather
it, hell! I'm in a P-51!"
There was a corollary experience. Returning from a long mission one day, a
bunch of P-38s, all flying on fumes, were jockeying to land first when a firm
voice came over the radio: "I'm coming in on one engine!" Naturally he got
priority clearance, and everybody looked around to see who was in trouble.
What they saw was a Tac Recon smart *** in a P-40 slipping in on final.
Everybody started swearing--and then started laughing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Low speed handling...verifies what we're saying, but the source is iffy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-38's stall was a gentle as a J-3's. Power-on stalls, usually fatal in
P-51s (and other single-engine fighers), were a piece of cake in the
Thirty-Eight. It gave plenty of stall warning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing
chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces)
of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A
shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail
length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the
tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a
great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for
instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs.
The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area
because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag
and made for a truly excellent flying airplane<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Roll rate in early models was directly related to pilot skill. Proper use of
differential throttle would induce a remarkable high roll rate (in either
direction) not attainable by aileron alone. Acceleration was always very
good with two airscrews generating thrust. As for energy retention,
the P-38 was a difficult aircraft to slow down. It did not bleed energy
as fast as most of its contempories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More slow speed handling:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There was nothing ungainly about the Lightning. At 250 mph it could turn
with the A6M Zero. At 275 mph, it could turn inside the A6M. Try that with
any Bf-109 variant. One problem faced by the 109 was ill effects of torque.
Torque could limit roll rate in one direction while enhancing it in the other.
The P-38, with its engines and props turning in opposite directions, did not
suffer from the P factor. The 109, on the other hand could induced to snap
spin out of a tight turn. The P-38 could maneuver on the edge of a stall with
good control. Not so the Bf-109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

George Ceuleers, CO of the 383rd Fighter Squadron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Somebody mentioned the FW 190 being able to outdive the 38 by 60 mph and be
five miles ahead very quickly. It would depend on the aggressiveness of the 38
pilot and how desirous the 190 jockey was to get away. In the days when the 38
was introduced into the long range escort role in the ETO, whenever a 38 pilot
was likely to encounter a German he was among a lonely few Yanks and a LONG way
from home. Plus he had orders to stick close to the bombers. Plus the Germans
he was likely to encounter were still pretty sharp then. Would YOU have gone
balls to the wall chasing some guy to hell and gone who absolutely positively
has friends of his lurking around that you haven't spotted?
By the time of the 51's heyday (and a fine little airplane it was), there was a
lot more of the guys in white hats around, fewer of the guys in black hats and
they were beginning to lose their edge.
Was the 38 worse than the 51? No. Just different. Did more pilots have
better luck in the ETO with the 51 than the 38? Seems so. Why? Tactics was
one reason. Freed from the bomber formations to chase the wiley kraut back to
his lair, corner him and finish him off, they were able to rack up more kills.
Another reason was the K14 gunsight. You could make kills using that sight in
situations where without it firing your guns would be a waste of ammunition.
I grant you that a lot of people preferred the 51 to the 38. The 51 was a
wonderful airplane, so it is easy to understand why. But then, believe it or
not, there were some people who preferred the P-40 to the 51. I've talked with
people who served in the 325 who were heartbroken to trade their Peter 4-0s for
Jugs. And there were some who got postively sick on their first mission in the
51 after trading their 47s for them. The spamcan seemed so insubstantial after
the Jug. Then there were those who had motored along in whatever they had been
flying, doing OK until one day they got to plant their feet on the rudder
pedals of a Mustang and suddenly they realized that THIS was what they were
born for. This was their airplane, and they really went to town with it.
Maybe that was the way it was for Bong with the 38 or Johnson with the 47.
Some things are beyond facts and figures."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

[This message was edited by MachineII on Wed February 04 2004 at 09:32 PM.]

[This message was edited by MachineII on Thu February 05 2004 at 07:06 AM.]

faustnik
02-05-2004, 10:11 AM
Hmmm....

This is bunch of interesting set of quotes for Gibbage to give to Oleg. So according to this batch the P-38:

- outdives any other a/c

- out-turns any German a/c and even a Zero over 250mph

- with an experinced pilot??? can outroll a 190?

- Has a lower E-bleed than its oponents.

- had a super gentle low speed stall and great low speed hnadling despite the fact that it weighs over 8 tons.

I think all these quotes are great, as long as Oleg also receives the reports that A.K.D. and I have posted indicating the limitations of the P-38. If Oleg only receives only the good and not the bad, you might as well supply the P-38 with a pink skin and the call letters N0--OB stenciled on the side. All I'm saying is that there is a fine line being walked with all the enthusiam for the Lightning here. It would really suck if the fans who most desire the P-38 end up not flying it because it's overmodeled.

It's going to be really interesting to see what Oleg does with the P-38. A lot of the characteristics discussed in this thread seem very difficult to model. It will be a good test of the flexibility of the FB engine.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

ZG77_Nagual
02-05-2004, 10:18 AM
What a great thread! I'm sure maestro Oleg will do his level best with this bird - looks like we'll need two throttles to make it happy though.

MachineII
02-05-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Hmmm....

This is bunch of interesting set of quotes for Gibbage to give to Oleg. So according to this batch the P-38:

- outdives any other a/c

- out-turns any German a/c and even a Zero over 250mph

- with an experinced pilot??? can outroll a 190?

- Has a lower E-bleed than its oponents.

- had a super gentle low speed stall and great low speed hnadling despite the fact that it weighs over 8 tons.

I think all these quotes are great, as long as Oleg also receives the reports that A.K.D. and I have posted indicating the limitations of the P-38. If Oleg only receives only the good and not the bad, you might as well supply the P-38 with a pink skin and the call letters N0--OB stenciled on the side. All I'm saying is that there is a fine line being walked with all the enthusiam for the Lightning here. It would really suck if the fans who most desire the P-38 end up not flying it because it's overmodeled.

It's going to be really interesting to see what Oleg does with the P-38. A lot of the characteristics discussed in this thread seem very difficult to model. It will be a good test of the flexibility of the FB engine.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's a very real airplane in the sense it DID have flaws. Remember, those quotes are equal parts fact, loyalty from its pilots, and some wartime lore. There is truth in there, I have no doubt of that, but certainly you are correct, it's not UBER.

I think the key point to take away from the quotes is that the P-38 was a FIGHTER and could hold its own (especially with a skilled/experienced pilot). Beyond that, and the interesting tidbits, that's all they prove.

PS The guy at the P-38 Association told me he's getting in touch with the board regarding the low speed handling data...so hopefully that will yield something concrete.

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
02-05-2004, 11:13 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned but the P-38 was, at least in part - designed by Kelly Johnson - who also did the f104, yf12a/sr71, U2/tr1 - project head for the P-80 and many others.
Kelly Johnson (http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/kelly1.htm)

Gibbage1
02-05-2004, 12:25 PM
To be honest, I dont think the P-38 could out-turn Zero's. Maybe at high speed, and under special circumstances, and with a very skilled pilot. But I think it was more of a stall fight then a turn fight. Once a single engine AC gets low and slow at a high angle of attack, the torque takes over. The P-38 had HUGE flaps directly behind the props. Plus the rudder was also in the propwash. Add that the no torque, and you have the makings for a stall fighter. But from what I read, the roll rate at low speed was HORRID. McGuire died stall-fighting a Zero. He felt so confident with his aircraft he tried it with drop tanks. He failed. But he faught many other Zero's in the same manner and won. That should accountfor something.

Gib

faustnik
02-05-2004, 12:36 PM
Gib,

Do you think it could out-turn the 190 or 109? If so why and and at what speeds?

The P-38 had higher wingloading and U.S. test showed its "clean turn" was the same as the P-47. Was it the 2 throttle deal that made it turn better? If so, can it be modeled in FB?

Also, any word from Oleg on if the progressive roll rate can be modeled?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Korolov
02-05-2004, 01:13 PM
I think it could probably stay in a turn with late 109s and 190s, but earlier ones will probably be able to turn inside them.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MachineII
02-05-2004, 01:22 PM
Progressive turn rate's gonna be interesting. I just hope it's not nerfed to compensate if there's a shortcoming in the engine...

I think it could out-turn a 190. Everything I see says the two planes were very competitive. Early 109's seem to have been prolematic...so they probably hold the edge in a turn.

I'm not sure the speed data is around...turn-rate's one of those difficult things to measure. Even AHT only uses a value, and doesn't explain how it's derived. (shrug)

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

Korolov
02-05-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Hmmm....

This is bunch of interesting set of quotes for Gibbage to give to Oleg. So according to this batch the P-38:

- outdives any other a/c

- out-turns any German a/c and even a Zero over 250mph

- with an experinced pilot??? can outroll a 190?

- Has a lower E-bleed than its oponents.

- had a super gentle low speed stall and great low speed hnadling despite the fact that it weighs over 8 tons.

I think all these quotes are great, as long as Oleg also receives the reports that A.K.D. and I have posted indicating the limitations of the P-38. If Oleg only receives only the good and not the bad, you might as well supply the P-38 with a pink skin and the call letters N0--OB stenciled on the side. All I'm saying is that there is a fine line being walked with all the enthusiam for the Lightning here. It would really suck if the fans who most desire the P-38 end up not flying it because it's overmodeled.

It's going to be really interesting to see what Oleg does with the P-38. A lot of the characteristics discussed in this thread seem very difficult to model. It will be a good test of the flexibility of the FB engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diving - no. Read the quotes back a bit. The P-38 could dive with a enemy fighter, but initially the enemy fighter would run away. It was only after a short period that the '38 was able to catch up with a diving plane.

Turning - no. It can turn with 109s and 190s, but I imagine a A-4 or a F-4 will easily be able to outturn it.

Roll rate - no. Again, pilots say that the first few degrees of roll were very sluggish. Only in sustained roll, after it had some momentum, was it able to roll at least as well as a standard single engine fighter.

E-bleed - Hard to say. It was designed to be as fast as possible, with tight cowling and polished skin. It will retain E well, but I doubt it will retain E as well as a Yak-3 or La-7. I'd put it on similar E bleed as a 109G-6.

Stall speed - the effect of the counter rotating props and flaps. Since each engine is counteracting the other, it doesn't have to worry about snapping out because of torque. That is, until you loose a engine.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
02-05-2004, 01:23 PM
Faust,

The way I understand it was that under 200 mph the torque from a single engine fighter would cause it to drop one wing and stall/spin when trying to execute a tight turn. Also I believe that -38 could only out turn the 190 and turn with the 109 when using the combat flap setting.
Wing loading the last word as far as turn performance goes. The airfoil used, as well as how much of the wing is located directly in path of the propwash(the P-38's flaps were also in the prowash) also affects how much lift a given wing area will produce. It's my understanding that the airfoil used in the P-38 created excellent lift but also caused it to have a low critical mach number. As I understand it high lift airfoils begine producing shockwaves sooner. They also create more parasitic drag. The drag can be lowered by making the wing longer and skinnier(increasing aspect ratio). Modern sailplanes, the B-24's "Davis" wing and the P-38 are all examples of this type of wing. On the Axis side the TA152 and Me309 also had a high aspect ratio wings.

Both rudders were also located directly in the propwash giving the -38 excellent rudder authority.

The BAe/McDonnell Douglas Harrier used bleed air from the engine to increase the lift produced by it's rather small wing. This allowed smooth high speed low level flight as well as good low speed maneuverability. Lift and control response were both increased.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

ZG77_Nagual
02-05-2004, 06:33 PM
just bumping one of the most brilliant threads yet

julien673
02-05-2004, 07:25 PM
agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

Korolov
02-05-2004, 10:01 PM
Well, I had my baseball bat out and the ball, tried to hit a home run but only bumped it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
02-05-2004, 11:37 PM
I'm just amazed that the USA bashers haven't showed up and started an insult match.

Korolov- I think that the -38 could probably only out turn the early 109's and FW's at very low airspeeds (using flaps) where the torque from their engines would've caused a snap stall. An old P-38 trick from Air Warrior was to force a horizontal scissors at very low altitude and airspeed. Once you and your adversary were down to almost stall speed jam on the power and accelerate away in a steep climb. if the bandit tried to follow he would snap into spin and crash. If he extended the -38's excellent accleration could usually reel him in. Judicious use of the rudder(using pedals not the keyboard) was the only to fly scissors.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Korolov
02-05-2004, 11:39 PM
Well, the pilot accounts from north Africa I've got suggest that 109s were too dangerous to turn with, no matter what.

But thats still for the P-38E and F, so the J and L with manuver settings would probably go better.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gibbage1
02-06-2004, 02:16 AM
I can say this. After exchanging many E-mails with Oleg, I think its safe to say many people here will be happy with the P-38 in IL2. No more or, no less then what it was and should be. Thanks to everyone who gave me the proof Oleg needed.

P.S. I still dont think it could out-turn a Zero http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MachineII
02-06-2004, 08:29 AM
Good to hear Gibbage!

Thanks.

Now, we need to encase this thread in a baggie so it will stay fresh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
02-06-2004, 08:41 AM
Nicely done Gib!

faustnik
02-06-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
No more or, no less then what it was and should be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm looking forward to it Gibbage. Thanks for all your hard work on the project! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

ImpStarDuece
06-09-2004, 08:49 AM
The p-38 is my favourite American combat aircraft of ww2 so i thought i'd just add my .50c

Was in a military bookstore on my way home today, flicking through various reference books and one quote from a CO of a P-38 group really stood out to me.

It was with regard to combat tactics and the VERY FIRST POINT adressed manouverability. As i dont have 20/20 recall this is a paraphrase, so there will be some error, but here goes.

"the P-38 can out turn any enemy fighter fighter below 25, 000 feet"

This seems pretty emphatic and pretty significant to me, as it was aimed at inexperianced pilots with regard to the correct handeling of a P-38 in combat. You have to be VERY sure of yourself to state something like this.

I'm gonna buy the book tommorow, i think it was a Soverign, but i'm not sure. Hate not having good reference material when i need it. The first 3-4 pages were dealing primarily with interviews of pilots about their combat experiances with the p-38. Then there was a copy of that ETO p-38 combat guide, about 4 pages long, where the above (mis)quote comes from.

On the other hand, my copy of P-38 Aces of the Med/ETO states that in interviews with German aircrew about which Allied fighter they would most/least like to meet in combat the P-38 was voted as the bird they would most like to face (the Spitfire was the least liked)

Will post tomoz with more info (and correct quotes).

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

Philipscdrw
06-09-2004, 11:25 AM
Why have you revived a 5-month-old 8-PAGE thread instead of starting a new one? Many people will read halfway through the first page before realising that the thread was started before AEP, and will leave in bemusement without reaching your post.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)