PDA

View Full Version : What the '38 J and L should be



Macel
06-20-2005, 04:35 PM
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

EnGaurde
06-20-2005, 09:08 PM
Captain Stan Richardson comments on the slow initial roll rate of the early P-38H and J models deployed with the 8th Air Force.
< some comments on low initial roll rate and the effect of subsequent modifications >
....The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster

probably tongue in cheek or hyperbole.

ive read comments on how nothing outrolled a FW190.

bias or truth or a placebo meant to ease worried pilots?

interesting to say the least.

VW-IceFire
06-20-2005, 09:20 PM
P-38L and J models with powered ailerons were faster at roll rates at very high speeds than even the FW190.

So yes...nothing rolled faster is true...but only at 400mph or better.

Check the NACA roll chart for details.

AerialTarget
06-20-2005, 11:01 PM
No, it's three hundred and fifty miles per hour.

The information is out there, and very easy to find. It's no secret what the P-38 Lightning really was. The truth is on paper, it's on video, and it's in the memories of men who flew them and are still alive today. It's not that people can't know, it's just that most people do not want to believe it. Not only do they not exert the ghost of an effort required to find out the truth, but they cover their ears when others bring it to them.


Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster

probably tongue in cheek or hyperbole.

bias or truth or a placebo meant to ease worried pilots? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read the statement immediately preceeding that? An honest man cannot possibly suggest that the statement about roll rate is tongue-in-cheek after reading the surrounding text. Did you even read the document, man? I suppose the list of problems were also placebos meant to ease worried pilots. Am I right? Use your head. No airforce at any time has been or would be stupid enough to teach their pilots that their airplanes could do something that they really couldn't. It's never happened and never will.

Propaganda for the folks at home is one thing - fighter pilot training is another altogether. Time and time again you will see instances of pilots warned about their aircraft's deficiencies and the enemy's advantages. You will never find a single case of fighter pilots being told that they had an advantage over the enemy that they did not have.

I wish you people would actually read and watch the things we post instead of skimming them for easily argued statements for your straw men.

VW-IceFire
06-20-2005, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
No, it's three hundred and fifty.

The information is out there, and very easy to find. It's no secret what the P-38 Lightning really was. The truth is on paper, it's on video, and it's in the memories of men who flew them and are still alive today. It's not that people can't know, it's just that most people do not want to believe it. Not only do they not exert the ghost of an effort required to find out the truth, but they cover their ears when others bring it to them. Fools!
My bad...350mph then. I knew it was around that mark. After that point, the powered ailerons kick in and there is a huge increase in roll rate. The P-38 had slow initial onset of roll but once it got going and at high speeds...nothing better.

But I would like to ask...this plane is now an incredible piece of work with the new FM giving it a new lease on life. What more must it be to satisfy you folks or will you ever really be satisfied?

AerialTarget
06-20-2005, 11:11 PM
I am nearly satisfied with the current representation, because it is nearly what it was historically. Indeed, two days ago Gibbage told me that he interviewed a pilot who flew the real P-38 in the war after getting him to try it out in the game. The pilot said that it was pretty much accurate, except that the real thing turned better!

But the fact is that the official documentation specifically states certain things about the P-38 that are still not attributed to it in the game. The Cloverleaf maneuver is still not possible, and neither is using differential power to enhance roll rate. The compressability is still about fifty miles per hour too early. The first two issues are, I believe, inherent problems with the flight model which I hope will be changed in Battle of Britain and the following games which might (hopefully accurately) model the P-38.

As I said, even with these problems, I am generally satisfied with the current representation of the P-38 in the game, because it is now nearly up to specifications. Indeed, I had not complained about the post-patch problems until now, when I hear fools bashing the real P-38, and calling the representation in the game "overmodelled," because they have no clue and have not done basic research on it. Why, someone just stated recently that it was overmodelled! And that is why I feel it necessary to point out that it is still not as capable as the real thing.

I suppose it's a bad time to point out that my tirade following my correction of your speed figure was not directed at you, but rather at several other posters in various threads.

By the way, would it surprise you to know that I want the P-38's problems modelled, too? Do you know that I want to have to switch to Auto Rich before adjusting power, or else suffer engine failure? Do you know that I want to have to adjust revolutions per minute before manifold pressure, or else suffer engine failure?

Macel, I thank you heartily - not only for attempting to show the people at this place what the P-38 was, but also for assisting me in my own learning about of the airplane I love.

EnGaurde
06-20-2005, 11:57 PM
It's not that people can't know, it's just that most people do not want to believe it

i think i ruffled your carefully preened feathers aerial.

i really dont doubt that the later p38 was a great airplane, under valued for all manner of reasons.

Loadout, range, speed, climb, two engine safety etc.

What puzzles me, is something that you chose to ignore in that very same article (you seem to doubt ive read) about how in the early deployments, it was nailed for being horribly complex and suffering bad design in key areas.

Notably the time taken to get from cruise to combat settings right when its really crucial.

Now it follows on for me to ask... just what does it take to make a bad aeroplane? Every component or just where it matters the most? I think now, dear aerial, we're getting into what, if i may borrow a line of your very own, "...people dont want to believe..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fer chrissake, they even call its engines, TIME BOMBS ! And you carry on about people not believing cause they dont want to. Unbelievable.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif hey look i know everyone has a cute and cuddly favourite aeroplane they just cant bear to see even so much as hinted at being insulted, and that report is delivered by people who should know back in the day, but even the buddha insisted his own teachings should be questioned. Now unless those countless monks arguing at each other and slapping their hands together over the ages have been totally deluded, perhaps theres something to be found in wondering about the validity of anything youre told, or in this case read.

God help me, i'll believe everything i read on the internet from now on. I dont know what came over me.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But, seriously, I did put in there the word truth.... so frankly im just as likely to believe it as not.

my own source of wonder came from reading many accounts, from pilots and im sure it wouldnt take too long to dig one up, about how the FW190 roll rate was superior to everything yet here i read an account that says the opposite.

Tell me aerial, who's actually correct in their claim.... the p38 side or the fw190 side?

faustnik
06-21-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:

Tell me aerial, who's actually correct in their claim.... the p38 side or the fw190 side?

The P-38L roll rate is modeled very well in 4.01. At very high speeds it was the roll king. There is even a little intertia lag modeled in.

The Fw190 roll rates peak to early. It rolls too slowly at high speeds, but, this has nothing to do with the P-38.

AerialTarget
06-21-2005, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by EnGaurde:
What puzzles me, is something that you chose to ignore in that very same article (you seem to doubt ive read) about how in the early deployments, it was nailed for being horribly complex and suffering bad design in key areas.

Notably the time taken to get from cruise to combat settings right when its really crucial.

Now it follows on for me to ask... just what does it take to make a bad aeroplane? Every component or just where it matters the most? I think now, dear aerial, we're getting into what, if i may borrow a line of your very own, "...people dont want to believe..."

Fer chrissake, they even call its engines, TIME BOMBS ! And you carry on about people not believing cause they dont want to. Unbelievable.

I'm very aware of engine problems on early P-38s and even later ones. I actually want these things to be modelled. That boggles you, doesn't it? Of course, I want all of the other aircraft that suffered from such things to do so, as well. I think you underestimate my understanding and appreciation of the P-38's negatives (some of which, like the RPM before manifold pressure, I was unaware of before this article).

Yes! I want to have to fumble for the fuel selector switches and gunsight bulb and all that other good stuff. Did you know that I currently fly around at maximum sustained power settings and not on full throttle, unlike ninety nine percent of the community? That's right! Forty four inches of manifold pressure and twenty six hundred revolutions per minute for this crazy Lightning lover! It costs me when I get bounced, and doesn't do me any good in the game, but I do it anyway. I also only start up one engine at a time (and I mean I wait for one engine to full start before beginning to start the other), even though I can start them both simulataniously. And now that I know about the manifold pressure problem, I won't be adjusting my throttle without first making the necessary (in real life, not the game) corrections to my RPM. Oh, if only we had our mixture controls!

Yet, though I have freely admitted that the P-38 had its faults, some of which are not modelled in the game, the fact remains that some of its strengths are not modelled, either, and that some of its flaws are exaggerated. As for roll rate? I don't know if it's up to specifications now, but I don't have a problem with it as it is. Who to believe? I believe Lockheed and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration over a Focke Wulf pilot who, though a mine of pertainant information, has never gone up against a boosted J or L. And if the current Focke Wulf roll rate is nerfed (which I do not doubt), then I actually hope it gets fixed.

I want a realistic simulator, not a balanced game. I have always been objective about my favorite airplanes; I want their flaws to be modelled as well as their strengths. I am very happy that my second favorite bird, the Corsair, is an absolute beast at low speeds, as it was in real life. In fact, I just spent three hours trying to land the thing on a carrier without bending my propellers, and I love it! Likewise, I do not argue the fact that the P-40 was a rather sad plane in real life. That doesn't make me like it less, though.

If the P-38 was a miserable airplane, I'd want it to be so in the game. However, it wasn't; it was the best performing aircraft of either side. It is logistical problems that kept it from being the perfect fighter, or even the best one. The P-51, obviously, is superior when logistics are factored in. And that is an important thing! Logistics win wars. But the fact remains that the P-38 L was the best performing aircraft of either side.

reverendkrv1972
06-21-2005, 03:14 AM
Interesting read Macel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-29_Sandman
06-21-2005, 05:53 AM
i do like how the 38 is now modeled. an absolute dream to fly without the snap-stalls it would do in 3.04. its zoom climb seems to be vastly improved as is stability, and hardly any head-shake from gunfire.

speed increase in dives might be just a tad off; all accounts i've read mentioned that the 38 would get so much speed so fast, it would hit compressability very quickly if allowed to run away from the pilot...in which case, he reverted to passenger status.

there is 1 thing tho i've noticed: it's (what i call) fish flip. where it'll flip over and over at least twice like teeter totter. hmmm, could the real 38 do this manuver? i dont recall any mention of this, but it is funny to see it do it. on the roll rate, kickin the rudder hard will definately improve its roll rate at slower speeds, but when its speed is already crankin, it doesnt take much rudder for it to roll quick. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1 question tho: has any1 done any acceleration tests in any of the 38's, and if done, what map, fuel load, and compared to what plane? if remembered, what manifold pressure/prop pitch was used?

irR4tiOn4L
06-21-2005, 08:49 AM
speaking of that have you tried landing the corsair on a carrier WITHOUT using the arrestor hook?

took me about 5 tries on a moving carrier but on a stationary one i just could not do it - came within about 30kmh tho.

Hook its pretty easy either way.

F4UDash4
06-21-2005, 10:04 AM
A note on P-38 "engine problems".

What was actually the major problem with P-38 engines in the ETO was the poor quality British fuel being fed to them. The Allison€s required a better fuel mix, very few of the engine problems experienced by the P-38 in the ETO were experienced elsewhere, in places where US fuel was used. In the Aleutians for example, temperatures of minus 60 at altitude were common but the P-38 had a much better maintenance record there than it did early on in the ETO. Once fuel problems were corrected in the ETO much of the engine problems the P-38 experienced were corrected as well. P-40€s and other Allison powered aircraft experienced the same problems when fed British fuel.

Also, the cumbersome €œswitchology€ that hampered early P-38€s was corrected at least by the J model, maybe before.

horseback
06-21-2005, 02:36 PM
Dash4, that's an old complaint, and not quite true. You're just gonna set off the Brits, and they're in prime time right now...

The fuel was mixed on base, by USAAF personnel, gasoline and the additives having been shipped separately. The whole problem with the initial deployment of the Lightning to Britain in 1943 had to do with the training of support crews and pilots for P-38 operations. Every prior commitment of the Lightning had been done with either experienced prewar groups trained up in the Lightning with heavy direct support from Lockheed, or combat veterans converting from P-39 or P-40s (with support units already well-versed in the Allison).

The 20th and 55th FGs were given essentially the standard AAF fighter pilot syllabus with some limited exposure to the early model Lightnings, including the abortive RAF version Lightning Mk I/Model 322, which had both props turning in the same direction (you want torque? We got torque!). They had very little in the way of combat experienced leadership, and less in the way of luck (an extremely important factor, when you're just starting out in a life or death endeavor).

There weren't a whole lot of units in England outside of the P-38 outfits with people experienced in the Allison, and the P-38's installation of the type was fairly unique, having the turbosuperchargers and all...

No, the fault lies entirely with the Army Air Force and 8th Fighter Command, which was kind enough to loan experienced fighter leaders to the single engined groups commencing operations in the ETO, but not to the Lightning groups. This in spite of the fact that the primary hope of successful long range escort was invested in the P-38. The single Mustang group borrowed from the 9th AF was strictly supposed to be a back-up.

cheers

horseback

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2005, 05:34 PM
It all depends on what SkyChimp says.

Cragger
06-22-2005, 05:09 AM
About the engines being 'timebombs', every piston aircraft engine in the war and to date had to be treated with respect even a modern little dinky lycom. You often see guncam footage and pilot accounts of aircraft being bounced and not evading part of that is you can't just ram home the throttle on an engine set for economical cruise and it not just **** out right then.

You'll build to much manifold pressure at a low rpm leading to excessive head temperatures and then following detetonation and failure. I can guarentee that if we had to treat engines like they really had to be treated in game then 99.8% of us would be blowing motors before we got off the ground.

If you look at these engines closely I think you'll be awed by what was achieved 60 years ago. These 1,500 - 2,000 hp engines where marvels of their breed, being able to run for hours producing that amount of power under of huge range of conditions. The only piston engines to this date that even come close to matching their power output are those used in top fuel dragsters and those have to be broken down after every run and is not uncommon to lose multiple cylinders in a run, a run that lasts just mere seconds.

WOLFMondo
06-22-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Cragger:

If you look at these engines closely I think you'll be awed by what was achieved 60 years ago. These 1,500 - 2,000 hp engines where marvels of their breed, being able to run for hours producing that amount of power under of huge range of conditions.

I think the most important thing here is these engines all depended on being used correctly by there pilots and ground crew. As pingu posted in the Tempest thread the Napier Sabre was in fact a very reliable engine that could run for 170+ hours at 3500HP but if used incorrectly or maintained badly wouldn't start and would be very troublesome.

Jumoschwanz
06-22-2005, 06:36 AM
I am sure the P-38 had a very high rate of roll, it is a documented fact. But there is still a problem for me with how it rolls.

The chart that gibbage throws around is for steady-state rolling. What I think th P-38 does much too well is CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION OF ROLL.

A body in motion/rest tends to stay in motion/rest, is an old law of inertia from physics text books.
With two v-12 engines to rotate about it's axis instead of just two wings, even though the P-38 could roll fast ONCE IT IS SET IN MOTION, it should not be able to start and stop it's rolling as quickly as a plane with no engines on it's wings.
Right now the P-38 can scissor back and forth with a single engine craft even at low speeds. With all the weight it has to swing around it's axis, it should start rolling very slowly, pick up to a fast roll rate, then have a lot more trouble stopping the fast roll than a single engine plane.

THis is not modeled, and not tested in any chart, but is a simple and irrefutable law of physics. The way the P-38 can scissor with a single engine craft at low speed looks like bul*(hit to me.
S!

Jumoschwanz

VW-IceFire
06-22-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I am nearly satisfied with the current representation, because it is nearly what it was historically. Indeed, two days ago Gibbage told me that he interviewed a pilot who flew the real P-38 in the war after getting him to try it out in the game. The pilot said that it was pretty much accurate, except that the real thing turned better!

But the fact is that the official documentation specifically states certain things about the P-38 that are still not attributed to it in the game. The Cloverleaf maneuver is still not possible, and neither is using differential power to enhance roll rate. The compressability is still about fifty miles per hour too early. The first two issues are, I believe, inherent problems with the flight model which I hope will be changed in Battle of Britain and the following games which might (hopefully accurately) model the P-38.

As I said, even with these problems, I am generally satisfied with the current representation of the P-38 in the game, because it is now nearly up to specifications. Indeed, I had not complained about the post-patch problems until now, when I hear fools bashing the real P-38, and calling the representation in the game "overmodelled," because they have no clue and have not done basic research on it. Why, someone just stated recently that it was overmodelled! And that is why I feel it necessary to point out that it is still not as capable as the real thing.

I suppose it's a bad time to point out that my tirade following my correction of your speed figure was not directed at you, but rather at several other posters in various threads.

By the way, would it surprise you to know that I want the P-38's problems modelled, too? Do you know that I want to have to switch to Auto Rich before adjusting power, or else suffer engine failure? Do you know that I want to have to adjust revolutions per minute before manifold pressure, or else suffer engine failure?

Macel, I thank you heartily - not only for attempting to show the people at this place what the P-38 was, but also for assisting me in my own learning about of the airplane I love.
No worries, I understand what its like to really know a plane and see it treated badly. Believe you me!

You'll also note that I'm a bit of a P-38 fan myself. I've built a P-38 campaign (Lightning Strikes - see my signature) and I've been to visit the restored P-38 Glacier Girl at her home in Kentucky. No matter what, the P-38 is a plane that was well loved with some extrodinary abilities that few other aircraft can ever boast.

Its just very well modeled now with most of those abilities present and there is a limit to what can be done in a simulator. I think we can rest assured that we now have the best representation of the P-38 around. I don't know of any better.

Equilizer
06-22-2005, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:

A body in motion/rest tends to stay in motion/rest, is an old law of inertia from physics text books.

Unless an external force acts on it. Ailerons are that external force counter-acting any inertia.

F4UDash4
06-22-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Dash4, that's an old complaint, and not quite true.

Some very reliable sources say that it is true.

|CoB|_Spectre
06-22-2005, 05:40 PM
It's important to consider the problems associated with the incredibly complex intercooler system of the early Lightnings. Aesthetically, the pre-J models were sleek beasts, but they were plagued by turbo-supercharger control problems related to the problematic and extensive plumbing of the intercoolers which ran the full span of the plane's wing leading edge. A maintenance nightmare, they often were the cause of explosive engine backfires sometimes so severe that it deformed the leading edge skin, not to mention the culprit behind many engine fires. From the J-model onward, less graceful but simpler "beard" or "chin" radiators were the solution to much of the P-38's engine issues. This may be the origin of the "bad gasoline" myth.

F4UDash4
06-22-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
It's important to consider the problems associated with the incredibly complex intercooler system of the early Lightnings. Aesthetically, the pre-J models were sleek beasts, but they were plagued by turbo-supercharger control problems related to the problematic and extensive plumbing of the intercoolers which ran the full span of the plane's wing leading edge. A maintenance nightmare, they often were the cause of explosive engine backfires sometimes so severe that it deformed the leading edge skin, not to mention the culprit behind many engine fires.

Except that the P-38F's in Alaska had the leading edge intercoolers, flew at 20k and above, in minus 60 degree tempratures, and had far fewer instances of engine failure. What was different?

US fuel.

BigKahuna_GS
06-23-2005, 12:18 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Jumoschwanz Posted Wed June 22 2005 05:36
Right now the P-38 can scissor back and forth with a single engine craft even at low speeds. With all the weight it has to swing around it's axis, it should start rolling very slowly, pick up to a fast roll rate, then have a lot more trouble stopping the fast roll than a single engine plane.

THis is not modeled, and not tested in any chart, but is a simple and irrefutable law of physics. The way the P-38 can scissor with a single engine craft at low speed looks like bul*(hit to me.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hi all, if you get the chance watch the "Roaring Glory Warbirds" episode of the P38L. I believe that this is a set of over 10 actual WW2 Warbirds flown by Jeff Ethell & Steve Hinton.

They start with a walkaround/pre-flight, explaining starting procedures from inside the cockpit, actual start-up, take off procedure and basic acrobatics (roll, dive, climb and yes a little scissoring). The 38 seemed to "leap" off the runway very very quickly.

I was amazed at how agile this bird was for it's size. The roll-rate is "right-now" there is no roll lag with the P38L and from my readings only the early P38 experienced roll-lag at higher speeds-not lower speeds. That means when the P38J model was retro-fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons--no more roll-lag. Camera positions are from inside the cockpit (pilot view), external and chase plane.


The single biggest thing I wanted to see "Clover Leaf Manuver" was not on the DVD--bummer, but it is in the Flight Journal magazine artical. You can buy this set for $5-10 bucks each at Amazon.com. I just bought some extras that I am going to ship to Oleg.

Nothing like seeing the real deal in flight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif!


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

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

Check pg. 3

The single dominant impression is this thing is smooth and effortless to fly€"quite unlike the more complex warbird types. Managing both engines quickly becomes second nature. Stalls are docile; just a rumble as the airflow starts to break up and move toward the wingtips€"no tip-stalling tendencies. To recover, just relax backpressure and fly away while shoving the throttles to full power with no worry of a snap-roll. At a 15,000-pound gross weight, a power-off gear- and flaps-down stall is 70mph! Those Fowler flaps are superb. While flying formation with the Cherokee Six camera ship, I was full of trepidation. The last time I did that in a Mustang, I held a bootful of right rudder, hanging on the ragged edge of a reduced power-on stall. At 100mph, I could hang the P-38 on its props, feet on the floor, and gently move the rudder to slide side to side.

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

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

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

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

____

AerialTarget
06-23-2005, 12:28 AM
Kahuna, you are my hero for so valiantly defending this wonderful plane 'gainst the defilers! You share hero status with "Kelly" Johnson, for designing the P-38, **** Bong, for making it famous, and Gibbage, for bringing it to the game.

bolillo_loco
06-23-2005, 01:45 AM
more on the engine reliability issue.

It seems that people who dislike the P-38 do not care to purchase any books written on this aircraft or they disregard the information provided to them by many others simply because they have a general reference book that tells them differently.

every WWII a/c had engine reliability problems. I know from reading books about american a/c that the 51 and 47 both suffered this problem at some point in time and some never solved the problem. The end all be all P-51 went on to finish the war with more engine problems during the last two years of fighting than that of the P-38. The mustangs engine ran nearly half as many hours before over haul as did the 38s engines and it took nearly twice as many man hours to rebuild the mustangs engine as it did for the 38.

All of the 38s engine reliability problems can infact be traced to the 20th and 55th fighter groups. In every other theater of operations the 38s engines were reliable. This notion that the air temp at 30,000 ft was colder over northern europe than in other parts of the world must also be purged from your heads. The air temp at 30,000 ft and higher is pretty much the same no matter what part of the globe you are in. Pilots in the MTO flew P-38s on bomber escort missions into germany quite frequently, high altitude bomber escort was a frequent mission of the 15th and 82nd F/G. 38s flying out of floggia italy even flew bomber escort on atleast one mission to berlin that I am aware of. The 38s flying out of italy flew along with 51s at high altitude and suffered less engine failures than that of the mustang groups. The 479th (8th A/F) flew a mixed bag of 38s and mustangs into October 1944 and did not suffer excessive mission aborts due to the "allision time bomb". In the PTO there were also high altitude bomber escort missions but those units did not suffer from excessive engine failures. In fact the 20th and 55th fighter groups suffered so many engine failures that Lockheed investiaged the situation. I have never read about lockheed investigating any other fighter groups other than the 20th and 55th which also leads me to believe the problems (in excess....no fighter squadron was immune to engine failure regarless of the a/c) were unique to the 20th and 55th.

20th & 55th F/G reasons for high abort rates and engine failures:

The investigations did not find any one reason, but did find several likely causes

coincidenct with the introduction of the P-38J was the arrival in england of many new and relatively inexperienced pilots.

engines were routinely being operated at the new 1600 bhp wer rating that was obviously closer to the detonation limits than with the earlier restriction to 1425hp

at 1600 hp the engine maintenance requirements were exacting. exhaust plugs were to have been changed after every flight that wer was pulled. this was not always done, leading to lead fouling and increased likelihood of detonation during subsequent operations at wer.

pilots were arriving from the us were they had been trained to use high rpm and low map when cruising on combat missions. this was very hard on engines and not consistent with either lockheed or allision technical instructions.

it appears that the fuel being provided in england for the p-38s during the winter of 43/44 was not entiredly adequate, as the tel would condense in the manifolds, particularly during cruise, and lead to destructive detonations.

the improved intercollers were providing considerably lower maniforld temperatures, which allowed tel condensation during cruise, as well as increasing the likelihood of plug flouling.

this can be found in several books about the P-38, some books go on further to talk about the men of the 20th and 55th F/Gs themselves, stating poor moral, ineffective leadership, and mechanics that were trained to service R-2800s and had no experience with allision engines. I would agree with them simply because of the many units that used the 38 and flew the same types of missions never experienced the problems as did the 20th and 55th f/g. when other units found short comings of the lightning they improvised with field modifications. even with mustangs the 55th and 20th F/Gs did no better (barring the month of Nov 44 when it seems every fighter group scored heavily) even though general reference books act like they went on to shoot down german a/c in droves with their new mustangs.

William Wolf wrote "Victory Roll" and he had absolutely nothing good to say about the P-38 other than the fact that in the MTO the P-38 out scored the merline P-51 and suffered less engine problems than that of the merlin mustang.

Vees for Victory by daniel whitney page 332 has a chart for the first 2 quarters of 1945 which gives flying hours and labor to overhaul for major engines used by the army air corps

1945 1st quarter

V-1650 labor hours to rebuild 251 flying hours before rebuild 302
V-1710 labor hours to rebuild 134 flying hours before rebuild 362

1945 2nd quarter

V-1650 labor hours to rebuild 259 flying hours before rebuild 200
V-1710 labor hours to rebuild 153 flying hours before rebuild 387

tony levier went to england and in may 1944 doolittle assigned 4 P-38s to him so that he could find the problems of "exploding engines" and improve the combat effectiveness of the aircraft. LeVier reported that he made two flights and ran the 38s engines at 60 in HgA (WER or WEP) and 3,200 rpm at an altitude of 35,000 feet until the fuel was almost gone. he reported that the engines "purred along smooth as silk" and after each of these flights the engine oil sumps and magnetic plugs were inspected for signs of internal engine damage, he reported that they were clean as a whistle. a compression check by allision rep found the twelve cylinders to have the highest values he had ever seen. Levier obviously knew what he was doing and the a/c was most likely serviced by mechanics familiar with the allision.

F4UDash4
06-23-2005, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
€¦€¦general reference books act like they went on to shoot down german a/c in droves with their new mustangs.

The same €œgeneral reference books€ (along with the €œHistory Channel€, €œDiscovery Channel€, €œWings Channel€ etc.) that also claim that no fighter could escort bombers to Berlin and back before the Mustang came along.

Meanwhile the P-38F demonstrated a ferry range in excess of 3000 miles in August of 1942.

bolillo_loco
06-23-2005, 08:35 AM
yes the other thing they forget to mention, while it is documented that the P-51 was the first american fighter to escort bombers from england to berlin, it is also documented that just a day or two before the 51's berlin mission, P-38s were suppose to escort bombers from england to berlin. due to weather the bombers aborted, however the escorting P-38s unaware of the situation flew to berlin claiming to be the first american fighters over berlin.

foggia italy to berlin is a god awful long distance, over 1,600 miles round trip yet P-38s managed to make it, a high altitude bomber escort mission no less.

Aaron_GT
06-23-2005, 10:49 AM
The same €œgeneral reference books€ (along with the €œHistory Channel€, €œDiscovery Channel€, €œWings Channel€ etc.) that also claim that no fighter could escort bombers to Berlin and back before the Mustang came along.

Which isn't true - the RAF were already doing it with Mosquitos before then.

bolillo_loco
06-23-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The same €œgeneral reference books€ (along with the €œHistory Channel€, €œDiscovery Channel€, €œWings Channel€ etc.) that also claim that no fighter could escort bombers to Berlin and back before the Mustang came along.

Which isn't true - the RAF were already doing it with Mosquitos before then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st, The mosquito is not a fighter, it is a light bomber/attack aircraft.
2nd, I stated american fighter.

F4UDash4
06-23-2005, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The same €œgeneral reference books€ (along with the €œHistory Channel€, €œDiscovery Channel€, €œWings Channel€ etc.) that also claim that no fighter could escort bombers to Berlin and back before the Mustang came along.

Which isn't true - the RAF were already doing it with Mosquitos before then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mossie wasn't a DAY fighter.

Blackdog5555
06-23-2005, 12:42 PM
The allisons were good engines but the pilots and crew had a nightmare maintaining them therefore they weent maintained as as they should . poor cleaning of the hamilton eletric auto prop would lead to shorts and overreving (run away props) causing engine failure and overreving by rooky pilots would cause dropped valves. I thinkd most problems could be traced to poor training and bad maintenance. fom what ive read... Alison was not a bad engine...proper fuel mixture was critical and pilots didnt have training to operate the engines properly. IMO

Aaron_GT
06-23-2005, 01:00 PM
Mossie wasn't a fighter.

It was conceived as a light boimber but turned out to be a capable multirole aircraft. The ones escorting RAF bombers to Berlin and back were nightfighter versions. So I don't understand what you are getting at.

F4UDash4
06-23-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mossie wasn't a fighter.

It was conceived as a light boimber but turned out to be a capable multirole aircraft. The ones escorting RAF bombers to Berlin and back were nightfighter versions. So I don't understand what you are getting at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you want to argue the point I'll amend my post above.

horseback
06-23-2005, 01:55 PM
Hardly the same thing, Aaron. No sober student of air warfare ever contends that the Mossie was capable of the fulltime daylight fighter role, any more than anyone would contend that the Lightning would have been an adequate long-range night bomber.

Escorting a night bomber stream is more of an independent operation for each nightfighter than the closely coordinated section, flight, squadron, and group operations conducted by daylight escorts. The only similarity was the distance involved.

cheers

horseback

bolillo_loco
06-24-2005, 02:00 AM
what I am going to write I found in this book

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764320564

the 479th fighter group 8th airforce flew P-38s from may 1944 until october 3rd 1944 in combat. It began using P-51s in combat on september 12th 1944 and finished the war in this aircraft.

I added up all sorties flown by aircraft and abort rates due to mechanical problems. I only took the month before 51s began service, the month the 479th flew both the 38 and 51, and the month after the unit ceased operations with the 38 and soley used the 51. The reason for this was brevity. the book does not compile these statistics for you.

P-38 August 12th 1944 thru September 11th 1944: 1,143 sorties 114 aborts, abort rate .10%
P-38 September 12th 1944 thru October 3rd 1944: 355 sorties 26 aborts, abort rate .07%
P-51 September 12th 1944 thru October 3rd 1944: 262 sorties 30 aborts, abort rate .11%
P-51 October 5th 1944 thru November 5th 1944: 780 sorties 67 aborts, abort rate .09%


total for both aircraft during this period

P-38 1,508 sorties 140 aborts, abort rate .09%
P-51 1042 sorties 107 aborts, abort rate .10%

the merlin doesnt look more reliable to me, and remember the 479th used a lot of J-10s and J-15s which the 20th and 55th fighter groups reported to be so unreliable, in their own words "the allison time bomb"

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:56 AM
Mossie wasn't a DAY fighter.

It was the nightfighters that went to Berlin, and you are quite correct that the USAAF did the first day escort missions to Berlin.

F4UDash4
06-24-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mossie wasn't a DAY fighter.

It was the nightfighters that went to Berlin, and you are quite correct that the USAAF did the first day escort missions to Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that was the intent of the post, as at that point in the thread we had touched on what the general "assumption" by many books, "history" TV shows etc. is about certain things. IE the notion that the only fighter capable of escorting daylight bombing raids to Berlin was the P-51, that is widely declared to be fact by many who should know better. It just isn't true, as early model P-38s had demonstrated in 1942 a greater range than the P-51 ever achieved.

bolillo_loco
06-25-2005, 11:25 PM
more on P-38 engine reliability, I was looking in The P-38 Lighting at War by ethell & christy and found these numbers.

15th airforce (MTO P-38 fighter unit)

44,296 sorties
3,814 early returns
.086 abort rate
608 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air
131 lightings were lost

look at those numbers and compair them to other fighter groups that did not fly the 38 and you will find the 15th a/f statistics were very impressive when one considers that they used the laim lighting. BTW this fighter group performed the same types of missions as did the 8th airforce fighter groups, they even fought against the same types of enemy aircraft.

*note that of the 3,814 aborts the aborts were due to all reasons, mechanical, weather, and any other problem encountered.

** 131 lightings lost to all causes I believe not just enemy aircraft

*** I believe this fighter group would have scored even more heavily had they not been tied to the bombers. for reasons unknown to me (perhaps because mustangs were more likely to be shot at by bomber crews than the 38) once the 51 arrived it was permitted to free roam ahead of the bomber stream and catch germans as they climbed out to attack the bombers. P-38s were tied to the bombers and not permitted to stray away to either chase e/a or finish off e/a that they had damaged.

F4UDash4
06-26-2005, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
*** I believe this fighter group would have scored even more heavily had they not been tied to the bombers. for reasons unknown to me (perhaps because mustangs were more likely to be shot at by bomber crews than the 38) once the 51 arrived it was permitted to free roam ahead of the bomber stream and catch germans as they climbed out to attack the bombers. P-38s were tied to the bombers and not permitted to stray away to either chase e/a or finish off e/a that they had damaged.

Turning the fighters loose to hunt was a decision made by Gen Doolittle when he took over the 8th in early 1944. I don't believe it had anything to do with the P-38, P-51 etc but just a difference in thinking on what was the best tactic for the fighters to use. He was right too.

quiet_man
06-26-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by F4UDash4:
Except that the P-38F's in Alaska had the leading edge intercoolers, flew at 20k and above, in minus 60 degree tempratures, and had far fewer instances of engine failure. What was different?

US fuel.

How often did Alaska flight switch between cruise and emergency settings?

Maby there wasn't to much 109/190 in Alaska http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man

bolillo_loco
06-26-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by F4UDash4:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
*** I believe this fighter group would have scored even more heavily had they not been tied to the bombers. for reasons unknown to me (perhaps because mustangs were more likely to be shot at by bomber crews than the 38) once the 51 arrived it was permitted to free roam ahead of the bomber stream and catch germans as they climbed out to attack the bombers. P-38s were tied to the bombers and not permitted to stray away to either chase e/a or finish off e/a that they had damaged.

Turning the fighters loose to hunt was a decision made by Gen Doolittle when he took over the 8th in early 1944. I don't believe it had anything to do with the P-38, P-51 etc but just a difference in thinking on what was the best tactic for the fighters to use. He was right too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the 15th airforce was not an 8th a/f unit. it was an MTO unit that flew 38s in combat during the entire lenght of the war

bolillo_loco
06-26-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F4UDash4:
Except that the P-38F's in Alaska had the leading edge intercoolers, flew at 20k and above, in minus 60 degree tempratures, and had far fewer instances of engine failure. What was different?

US fuel.

How often did Alaska flight switch between cruise and emergency settings?

Maby there wasn't to much 109/190 in Alaska http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the F model operated at a lower map and hp rating, H models were restricted to 1,240 hp (according to most books I have read) at 25,000 ft which was with in the design limits of the leading edge inner coolers.

early J-5 and J-10 models were the ones used by the 20th and 55th which suffered engine problems. the many reasons which lead to those two fighter groups suffering engine failures and how many other units operating the same aircraft under the same conditions suffered the same or less engine failures as other fighter groups operating aircraft types other than the P-38 has already been explain in this thread.

F4UDash4
06-26-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

the 15th airforce was not an 8th a/f unit. it was an MTO unit that flew 38s in combat during the entire lenght of the war

LOL, yes I know. But as far as I know the orgination of the idea of letting fighters loose to "hunt" came from Gen Doolittle at the 8th. maybe someone at the 15th came up with the idea about the same time or they simply followed Doolittles lead when they seen the success....

AerialTarget
06-26-2005, 08:04 PM
No, you're missing his point. His point was that the Fifteenth flew P-38s for the entire war, and they never did get set loose, unlike the P-51s in the same outfit. Yet, they still had a shining record. The problem was not the airplanes, it wasn't the theatre, it wasn't the weather. The problem was the Eighth.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 12:24 AM
say its been friendly so far

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 04:19 AM
That is because Hristo has not yet showed up with his lies - lies which are deliberately outrageous, intentionally untrue, completely baseless, and proven wrong - intended to goad P-38 Lightning fanatics into ill-prepared duels.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 06:12 AM
personally I find hristo's one liners to be the best reads on this forum.

my favorite is about the mosquito and he says, "Great! more wood to burn!"

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 09:58 AM
I would tend to agree if it were not for the frustrating fact that, as far as the game is concerned, he is right. Of course, real life was a completely different story, and he knows it.

It's probably just as well that we don't have the Mosquito - I can't bear to watch another airplane that historically left the Luftwaffe in its propwash become a slow, helpless target in the game.

bolillo_loco
06-27-2005, 01:49 PM
target I think you need "oleg's anonymous" a 12 step program for those whos lives have become unmanageable due to this game. I am a Oleg's anonymous #1 and I am trying to get leadspitter as oleg's anonymous #2. we could be to this game what dr bob and bill w. were to alcoholics anonymous.

AerialTarget
06-27-2005, 02:05 PM
Well, count me in. Leadspitter will have to be number three. I already took a year long break from this game, so it can be done. On the other hand, I came back when I heard about a completely new flightmodel.

cousinpablo
06-28-2005, 08:02 AM
Here's a self explanatory extract of an interview with Johanness Steinhoff:

WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.

Note that he says that the Mustang is deadly only because of the range - they could be anywhere.

Remember, the Lightning would have been the main USAAF pursuit fighter in Europe if it weren't so **** expensive and hard to learn to fly. The Mustang made a rookie look like he could fly like a pro - and was cheaper.

The Lightning was far more deadly. Just look at the side view of the 2 and you will see that the Lightning is more difficult to see - its sleeker and narrower.