PDA

View Full Version : P38: Oleg will 4.0 Lightning have correct elevator control?



GR142_Astro
03-31-2005, 11:32 PM
At altitudes below 3,000M the P38 loses elevator control at low speed. This is incorrect since the P38 had no high speed control problems at low altitude in thick air.

Will this be corrected in 4.0?

Hetzer_II
03-31-2005, 11:42 PM
Proofs?

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

Badsight.
04-01-2005, 04:27 AM
lol , come on Hertzer , thats something like what Hayate_Hater would say

just a little reading & a little flying & anyone can see there is a couple of things that surely need looking at with the P-38

i mean this is the ORR after all , if you cant have a serious discussion here of all places . . . . . then . . . . .

Hetzer_II
04-01-2005, 04:44 AM
Hey Badsight...

First of all: It was a joke... thats why i choosed the smiley after what i´ve wrote....

But wasnt it Astro for example asking for proofs in the 109 elevator thread? Anywhere near page 22 i believe ;-)

So when proofs are such an musthave to be right... that counts for everyone...

But yes, the p38 is one of the underdogs at the moment especially in higher regions...

Greets

JG5_UnKle
04-01-2005, 04:49 AM
The effect is overdone IMHO, and with the Lightning being such a high-speed oriented bird it does make flying it against contemporary Luftwaffe opposition a loaded challenge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Skalgrim
04-01-2005, 06:29 AM
Seem that some plane like p38 and too 109, that have good low ias speed maneuver,

had not advantage greater altitude, because tas and ias are mixup

plane that turn with 320km/h ias sealevel better turn too with 320km/h ias at 7000m better, so long she has enough powerloading

and rollrate is anyway ias depent, at 7000m should 109 almost all ally plane outroll, because superior rollrate low ias

at great altitude are dogfight rare over 400km/h ias

Blackdog5555
04-01-2005, 10:59 AM
I agree, but even high speed high altitude, 25,000ft is where i like to do QMB, the P38 has poor elevator response. And the one Pling elevator lock up doesnt help!

BSS_CUDA
04-01-2005, 12:05 PM
also the roll rate is too slow with the L model, it had the power assisted ailerons and at speed 300+ it was supposedly better than the 190. I could try and retrieve the data if neccesary. I TRULY hope I'm not disapointed with the new FM and the 38. it is the only bird I fly on the WF servers. still and up and down, some days are better than others. found out if your gonna DF in it make sure you drop your 1000 lb'ers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif they fly much better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-01-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Proofs?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proofs? There has been many articles and charts posted on this very subject. But they have dissapeared from the board.

Keep an eye on this thread Astro. Be sure it dont end up in the trash like all other US related subjects on these matters. Funny how the 109 version of this thread is still up and running with the same 7 individuals bumping it.

faustnik
04-01-2005, 04:19 PM
I added the P-38L into this chart but, I did take the figures from real data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

Codex1971
04-01-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
also the roll rate is too slow with the L model, it had the power assisted ailerons and at speed 300+ it was supposedly better than the 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

BSS_CUDA
04-01-2005, 05:14 PM
So looking at this chart the 190's roll starts to greatly deminish above 260 MPH ( still excellent tho )and the 38L surpasses it at 360 MPH. well thats obviously not modeled in the game. and the 190 never loses or even slows down in its roll rate. I hope with this new FM as it has been reported all your strengths and weaknesses will become more prevelant. now its just a matter of "IF" 1C will correct FM inaccuracies on all aircraft. I'm guessing that probably will not happen ( too labor intensive ) well hopefully with the torque being "corrected" that the stall and turning abilities of the 38 will as much advantage as we need. one thing you can count on, if you thought there was whinning before then you aint seen nothing yet. Oleg is gonna get hammered from both side when they cant fly their aircraft like they did before

Codex1971
04-01-2005, 05:52 PM
This should be fixed.

GR142_Astro
04-01-2005, 07:35 PM
Rgrt Havok,

I did a search for the lengthy P38 threads and couldn't find anything. I think there were 2 pretty good ones. I'm not much of a conspiracy buff, but this is really lame if certain threads are being deleted.

@CUDA: I think the later model J's had boosted controls as well.

One other really odd thing about the P38 elevator: For a control surface so large, it generates really mediocre response at ALL speeds. I've never read a single quote from a P38 pilot about heavy stick troubles, outside of compressiblity. Here's a test:

Take both a P38 and a 109 at around 200kph and abruptly push the nose over. The 109 nose will drop instantly while the P38 stammers around like it's got something stuck under the nose. That little hesitation has ruined a number of gun solutions for me. Anyone have RL info on this?


The 3.05 P38 is like the first FB Jugs, lots of potential but not there yet. Remember this missing P47 horsepower due to a "typo?"

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

BSS_CUDA
04-01-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Rgrt Havok,



@CUDA: I think the later model J's had boosted controls as well.



The 3.05 P38 is like the first FB Jugs, lots of potential but not there yet. Remember this missing P47 horsepower due to a "typo?"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr Astro the P-38J 25-LO had boosted ailerons also, but it was essentially an L model. Too bad we'll never get the K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif 4800ft per minute climb 450mph level flight, heh

and we can only hope it was a typo eh Astro http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
04-01-2005, 09:21 PM
I agree with you guys on all counts. The P-38L should have a better roll rate at high speed and I am amazed every time I fly it, which I admit is not enough, at how quickly the elevator authority is lost. I have only heard good things about 4.0, so have faith that this issue will be looked at. It took a long time to get the P-47 and Fw190 improved, but, look how good those two a/c are now in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F4UDash4
04-01-2005, 09:34 PM
If the P-38J-25-LO and later are ever modeled correctly, IE so that it will perform as did the real aircraft, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be heard around the flight sim world because those P-38s will be near unbeatable.

GR142_Astro
04-01-2005, 10:02 PM
Mmmm, gnashing.

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

BSS_CUDA
04-02-2005, 07:31 AM
Astro, you need to join us on Warclouds and fly with me,Motrin, Worrky, and a few others, its a blast

p1ngu666
04-02-2005, 08:12 AM
theres a neat trick u can do with the elivator

on the ground, use chocks or brakes, rev up to full power, let go of brakes, pull back on sticks... insta tail dragger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

btw the search is broken http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2005, 02:44 PM
S!

I think that if the P38J and P38L just had the correct WEP brake horsepower ratings, correct max climb rates and speed; 90% of the problem would be solved. The P38J was retro fitted with hydraulic boosted airlerons.


This information is from "Vee's for Victory" by Daniel Whitney. Whitney's background as a Mechanical and Nuclear engineer is quite impressive. Whitney is not affiliated with either Lockheed or Allison but his study is the result of years of independent research on Allison aircraft engines during WW2. Whitney's book is considered the definitive book on this subject.

I am waiting for an email back from Daniel Whitney on this matter. According to Whitney, Allison engine techs were in the ETO always monitoring the P38 engine performance. It was Allison engine techs that told Whitney that operating the F-30 engines at 1725bhp was a routine matter. In other words everybody was flying the P38L this way.

P38L :
"The F-30 engine was still rated as the F-17's but incorperated many internal improvements, most notably the 12-counterweight crankshaft. As a consquence it could be operated up to 3200rpm. Using 150 fuel it could deliver 1,725bhp under WER conditions."
Directly from Allison Aircraft engines.
Vee's for Victory pg145


Here is an email response from Warren Bodie on this subject :

Using 3200rpm and 1,725bhp during combat :

"And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. "

The USAAF played it safe and told the pilots not to go over the 3,000rpm setting. If you had another 200rpm & 250bhp avaialble during air combat manuevering would you use it ? Bet your butt you would.


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:18 PM
To: widewing@dnet.net
Subject: P38L WEP rating of 1,725hp



Hello Keith,

What in the world is going on outside of my small enclave of residents here on the shore of beautiful Lake Chatuge?
I am being deluged this week by all sorts of people wanting to know if I can provide the best possible accurate info on several related and unrelated av subjects. What will happen when the new Special Edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL gets into circulation in the next couple of weeks. I have a feature story in there on the subject of Supermarine Spitfires.
They only used half of what I submitted, but they are constrained by top management to about 7 or 8 pages for any one story. Umpteen thousands of Spitfires in more models and modified models than anyone can believe were in the fight during WWII.

First of all, let me advise you that with my 43 years of experience in various engineering jobs in the manufacturing industry, and having been on very friendly basis with people from Kelly Johnson and Gen. Ben Kelsey to Jack Northrop and a host of others (I have been a senior service engineer specialist, technical publications supervisor, structural repair designer, etc.,), there are no two engines or no to airplanes that perform to exactly the same level anywhere in the world. Too many manufacturing, rigging, adjusting, etc. factors involved, not to mention what each flight hour does to different airframes and engines of the same model, for any two engine-airplane combinations to perform in the same, exact way. I suspect that even two identical appearing cement blocks might not give exactly the same results. Airplanes are subjected to too many different actions and material combinations to work anywhere near exactt standards.

The really most definitive book on the subject that you have forwarded to me is the great study and product from my friend, Daniel D. Whitney. Published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. with ISBN: 0-7643-0561-1; try your local bookstores first, then, if unsuccessful, e-mail to schifferbk@aol.com for info.

But, meantime get this single fact: Allison Engineering qualified the F-30 engine WER at 1,725 bhp at 3200 rpm. However, the USAAF NEVER authorized that rating, with ATSC preferring to stick with a 3000 rpm limitation. These engines were in Lockheed P-38L, F-5G and P-38M airplanes. Aircraft installation, maintenance, rigging, supercharger performance, propeller performance, etc. all affected individulal engine and airplane performance. And, as certain pilots, including the great Col. Cass Hough who shared command with Col. (later B/Gen.) Ben Kelsey, would have been glad to tell you, if you needed more in combat situations, you did whatever was necessary to escape being defeated. If you did it right and if you were lucky enough to have a top-quality PRODUCTION engine set, you won the game. Ben Kelsey would be among the first to agree with me on that assessment. (Just think of how many things can affect friction in an operating engine, with detonation being the most fierce ingredient and fuel being high on the list as well.

No matter who throws other figures at you, with little to fall back on (maybe even Martin Caidin's pitiful Lightning book as a reference), you will not find a better reference source than Dan's book. He pursued facts for years, maybe decades. I never asked. Read the back, inside dust jacket of the book, before you read it. You will learn about Dan's background. When I did my P-38 book, I had already retired from 40 years in the aerospace industry, several years (decades), in fact, of writing for magazines as a side effort. Dan focused on one primary subject out of several millions that could have attracted his attention. His coverage is indisputable. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cordially, Warren Bodie

__


P38J Max climb rate (WEP) 4000fpm at sea level and 2900fpm at 23,400ft.

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ----------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft

The P38L had from the very beginning the high-output F30 Allison engine installed and it was able to do 3200rpm but the USAAF official recommendation to the pilots was only to use 3000rpm. According to Allison techs & pilot reports when 150 octane aviation fuel arrived in March 1944 in the ETO, P38L pilots were pulling maximum WEP ratings of 1,725bhp at 3200rpm.



__________

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-02-2005, 02:57 PM
Thats great stuff Kahuna. Thanks for sharing.

Bull_dog_
04-02-2005, 03:35 PM
Please oh please make sure Oleg gets this stuff!!! please, please, please oh pretty please!

BSS_CUDA
04-02-2005, 04:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif we can only hope

Spectre-63
04-02-2005, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Please oh please make sure Oleg gets this stuff!!! please, please, please oh pretty please! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it'll take more than someone sending it his way to make sure that Oleg "gets it"....but I'm sure either he or one of his sycophants will be along anytime now to declare this information more "American Propaganda" or "anecdotal".

GR142_Astro
04-03-2005, 02:58 AM
Thanks for posting that info Kahuna, great stuff. I really enjoy the P38, it would be great if it was brought up to realistic performance.

BTW, isn't Rare Bear just the coolest looking a/c going? Too bad we can't have the Bearcat in FB.

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

Badsight.
04-03-2005, 07:38 AM
Rear-Bear , while being simply AWESOME , is more freak than Bearcat

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Rearbear2v2.jpg

the nose of this A/C holds roughly 4000+ Hp

F4UDash4
04-03-2005, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:

it'll take more than someone sending it his way to make sure that Oleg "gets it"....but I'm sure either he or one of his sycophants will be along anytime now to declare this information more "American Propaganda" or "anecdotal". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch, that stings!

But, unfortunately, it's also TRUE.

GR142_Astro
04-03-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Rear-Bear , while being simply AWESOME , is more freak than Bearcat

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Rearbear2v2.jpg

the nose of this A/C holds roughly 4000+ Hp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick topic sidestep: Have they done more than just the canopy and obvious engine mods? Looks pretty normal elsewehere. Maybe the top of the nose between the cowl and windscreen have been altered? Cool pic anyway.

Now back to the P38.

Does anyone else seem to get better elevator response out of the L than the J? I seem to, and NO dive brake is being used in my tests.

Vipez-
04-03-2005, 04:14 PM
Agreed, P38 and BF109 needs to have corrected elevators.. and P38L much higher rate of roll (at speeds over 500kmh.). Max speeds and climbs seem pretty much accurate for the Lighning.

dgarmsd
04-04-2005, 02:39 PM
Heres some more PROOF from another source.

P-38 Lightning in action.
Aircraft Number 109
Squadron Signal Publications 1990

P-38J (Model 422)
Page 31
Quote:

The flight controls were modified in 2 stages, each of wich made the P-38J more maneuverable and controlable. First, hydraulic boosters were added to the aileron control system, greatly increasing the roll rate of the P-38J over earlier lightnings. With the "combat flaps" and hydraulically boosted aileron controls, the P-38J could maneuver with (but not out maneuver) the best single engine second world war fighters.

The second stage of flight control modifications was the installation of the so called "dive flaps" under the wing.

The "dive recovery flaps" were introduced begining with the P-38J-25. All subsequent models had them as standard equipment.

end of quote:

I hope this helps. If required by Oleg I would gladly get this info. scaned so it could be sent to him. Hell I'd scan the whole book if I thought it would help.

dgarms

horseback
04-04-2005, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Rear-Bear , while being simply AWESOME , is more freak than Bearcat

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Rearbear2v2.jpg

the nose of this A/C holds roughly 4000+ Hp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, so does mine, when the pollen count's up...

But back on subject, the elevator response really grates when you have an idea of how good it should be. Contemporary accounts from both sides state clearly that the P-38 would pop right up into a steep climb, and that it could pull out of a dive started from altitudes below 20K ft much better than 109s or 190s.

cheers

horseback

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Just a quick topic sidestep: Have they done more than just the canopy and obvious engine mods? Looks pretty normal elsewehere. Maybe the top of the nose between the cowl and windscreen have been altered? Cool pic anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure but Ill bet they removed the EXPLOSIVE bolts that would blow off about 12" of the wing tips during high g manuvers.. In that they eventully removed them from even the service models. Sounds crazy.. but it is true.

BigKahuna_GS
04-05-2005, 04:24 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Vipez-
Forever Würger-whiner
posted Sun April 03 2005 15:14
Agreed, P38 and BF109 needs to have corrected elevators.. and P38L much higher rate of roll (at speeds over 500kmh.). Max speeds and climbs seem pretty much accurate for the Lighning.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



The max speed, maxclimb and WEP ratings are off in several areas for both the P38J and P38L. That is 90-95% percent of the problem.

This has been posted before:

Here are official performance numbers of an USAAF fighter evaluation of the P38J-10, P47D-10, P39Q-5 and P51B. The P38J-10 serial number AC42-67869 was flown by 3 pilots during a 30hour accelerated flight test on December 2, 1943.

Maximum horsepower at 60.8 inches of Hg manifold pressure, 3000rpm was listed at 1,612 brake horse power (WEP) per F-17 Allison engines. (P38 J10-LO) pg.213 "The Lockheed P38 Lightning" by Warren M. Bodie Lockheed engineer/historian.

USAAF flight test results P38J-10 :
Maximum Sea Level speed -----------------------------345mph
Maximum critical alt speed --------------------421.5mph (WEP) (25,800ft)
Rate of climb (SL) ---------------------------------4000fpm
Rate of climb (critical alt) ------------------------2900fpm (23,400ft)
Time to critical alt --------------------------------6.19 mins. (23,400ft)
Service ceiling -------------------------------------40,000ft




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


Bodie W.M. 'The Lockheed P-38 Lightning', Widewing Publications, 1991

The typical numbers presented for the P38J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the P38L are 414 mph IN METO.

The difference between METO and WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP. As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.

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

Allison spent a great deal of time and money on the "dash thirty" program.
They produced volumes of dynometer data for Lockheed and the AAF.
Lockheed did their own testing and confirmed the Allison numbers. Hence,
the installation of the -30 in the L model.

The following are the CORRECT stats for the Allison V-1710F-30.


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


The main reason for right and left "handed" engines was to eliminate torque. You could change power settings in the P-38 and not have to retrim the airplane. The P-38 did not require generous amounts of rudder when advanciing the throttles on takeoff. To quote one notorious P-38 pilot: "Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produceda symmetrical slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat."

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

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

The P-38L, continued

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


Warren Bodie lists official USAAF flight test results in his book.


_____

GR142_Astro
04-05-2005, 06:40 PM
More great stuff, my files are filling out.

Thanks K!

faustnik
04-06-2005, 01:41 AM
Are there any actual test figures for compression/altitude. Flew COOPs in the "J" today and was again frustrated by the very early compression. I was ok, used combat flaps immediately to get out of it but, jezz, it made me paranoid to enter any dive.

GR142_Astro
04-06-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Are there any actual test figures for compression/altitude. Flew COOPs in the "J" today and was again frustrated by the very early compression. I was ok, used combat flaps immediately to get out of it but, jezz, it made me paranoid to enter any dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frustrating is certainly the word.

Trying to BnZ with this thing is an exercise in futility. Can any of you guys actually shoot at anything with the dive brake deployed? Nose bobble city.

Gibbage1
04-06-2005, 01:22 PM
Let me add my 2 cents about the boosted Ailerons in the J.

Yes, they were retrofitted. But they were RETRO-fitted. The P-38J's started getting the kits after the L came into play to bring the J into line with the new L model. This was in 1944. That would make the J model with boosted ailerons a 1944 model, NOT a 1943 model. Thats why I built the J without boosted ailerons, so we can have a P-38 in 1943.

Understand? So if you convince Oleg to give the P-38J boosted ailerons and dive recovery brakes, we would just have 2 of the same aircraft. Lets not do that.

Gibbage1
04-06-2005, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Are there any actual test figures for compression/altitude. Flew COOPs in the "J" today and was again frustrated by the very early compression. I was ok, used combat flaps immediately to get out of it but, jezz, it made me paranoid to enter any dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWII pilots felt the same way with the J model. When I was doing my roll rate test's last night, I was getting into compresability at 380MPH. The aircraft is supposed to fly level at 420MPH. You can see the problem. I will check the manual once again, but I have sent the data over and over to Oleg and nothing has changed since AEP Beta.

hawkmeister
04-06-2005, 02:18 PM
First off - I really, REALLY enjoyed readingthat greatly detailed information posted by Kahuna. Thank you VERY much for posting that.

My question is - is there any reliable source of data for elevator forces as a function of speed?

I'm no engineer, but I get the feeling that the developer might be confusing Mach tuck with elevator force gradients. I know that Mach tuck will obviously impair or defeat the elevator's ability to affect the airplanes flight profile, but did the P-38's elevators really become tis heavy at such low speeds - well below the quoted 0.65 (IIRC) critical Mach. If I remember correctly, sea level mach is 760MPH (standard day), so that's 494 MPH before the P-38 should be experiencing this phenomenon (please educate me if I'm mistaken). The elevators become practically useless about ~380 IAS (as Gibbage noted) - and I automatically enter 20 units of nose up trim at the start of Quick combat to prepare for this.

So unless I'm misunderstanding all the aerodynamics of this, I don't think we're dealing with compressibility here - at least we shouldn't be - but rather a function of elevator force vs. speed.

-Bill

Gibbage1
04-06-2005, 02:24 PM
If I remember, the chart on the pilots manual has a dive limit of 380MPH at 20,000 feet, but I think that is TAS, not IAS or visa-versa. That may be creating the descrepency here. Also! The P-38 did not suffer from compresability in lower thicker air. If I remember, the dive chart stops at 10,000 feet at 420MPH (I could be wrong, can someone check this till I get home?). But I think that its a limit of the engine, that FB cant simulate altitudes effecting compresability. Thats why the P-38's dive is so messed up.

The above is only theries, and needs testing to verify.

Spectre-63
04-06-2005, 07:37 PM
I wonder, Gibbage....is it a limit of the engine like, say, the muzzle flashes were a limit of the engine??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Blackdog5555
04-06-2005, 09:35 PM
thats right, below 10,000ft. the speed of sound inceases to the point where p-38 terminal speed is reached before much Mach compressability is felt.
BTW: retrofitting was delayed in the ETO when a british pilot shot down the transport carrying the 400 retro dive flap units. bad luck.

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2005, 12:22 AM
S!


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/38dv.gif


These are compressibility comments from one of my virtual squadmates who was a F6F Hellcat pilot:

Subject: Re: P38L Pilot Manual Stall & Dive Behavior

Comments from Military Pilot:

More about Mach number, compressibility, true Air Speed and Indicated Air Speed.
Based on the Lockeed Numbers: At 20,000 ft, IAS of 360mph, Std day temp. = -24.6 C. This calculates to TAS =496mph and Mach number = 0.805. Based on my experience, that is a fair number for the limiting Mach number for the P-38. The straight wing F9F-5 was limited to about M= 0.899. The F9F-5 was designed to get as much speed out of its straight wing as possible. (Not so for the WWII airplanes.)
The mach number limit is the same at all altitudes! So if the P-38 exceeded Mach O.805 at any altitude, it would enter Compressibility and lose controlability and/or come apart soon after.

For the same Mach number, TAS also changes with altitude when compared to IAS. So for 5,000 feet altitude, Mach 0.805, Temp. +5.1C, the TAS is 501mph and IAS will be 478mph. What this says is that if the pilot exceeds 360 Indicated at 20K or if he exceeds 478mph indicated at 5000 ft, he will enter compressibility.
The reason all the test data was taken at altitude by Lockeed was that they were not sure of what was going on at the time in compressibility and needed altitude to recover from expected emergency conditions.

Also, it is probable that the P-38 could not achive the Indicated Air Speeds needed to go into compressibility at lower altitudes because of higher drag at the lower altitudes. 478mph indicated at 5000 ft would really be "shaking"in the P-38 and "Q" (Structual strength) effects might become a bigger problem than Compressibility.
I will estimate that very few people in the world knew exactly what was going on with the high speed compressibility situation. Until "Chuck" Yeager went supersonic in the Bell X1, the general run of military pilots (or any others) didn't know what compressibility was. That's probably true of most of today's pilots also. They are trained to never exceed the aircraft's Max Mach number, and the max Temperature number these days, and the people who are careful will stay alive.

_____


Here is a copy of the official USAAF P38 pilot manual. Notice the flying chraracteristics during a stall and how the plane "mushes" forward when stalling. Also under Diving, all the compressibility examples are given at high altitude with a 45degree dive or a 4.5g pull out at high alt, no mention of low altitude compressibility problems.

PILOT'S FLIGHT OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
FOR ARMY MODELS
P-38H Series, P-38J Series, P-38L- L-5 and F-5B AIRPLANES
Chapter €œPilot Operating Instruction€


13. GENERAL FLYING CHARACTERISTICS.
a. Due to the counter-rotating propellers, there is no noticeable torque effect in any two engine flying with this airplane. Rudder and aileron trim tab settings do not require adjustment as a result of changes in airspeed and power.

15. STALLS.
a. With power OFF, the airplane stalls at the following indicated airspeeds at the gross weight noted:
15,000 Ib. 17,000 Ib. 19,000 Ib.
Flaps and landing gear UP 94 mph 100 mph 105 mph
Flaps and landing gear DOWN 69 mph 74 mph 78 mph
b. As stalling speed is approached, the center section stalls first with noticeable shaking of the airplane, however, the ailerons remain effective.
c. In either "power-on" or "power-off" stalls with flaps and landing gear up, the airplane "mushes" straight forward in a well-controlled stall. With flaps and landing gear down, there appears to be a slight tendency for one wing to drop. There is, however, no tendency to spin. Under these conditions, the nose drops slightly and, as the speed increases, the wing will come up.

18. DIVING.
CAUTION
Manifold pressure must be kept at or above 20 inches Hg. during extended shallow dives in order to prevent possible malfunctioning or misfiring of engines when throttles are opened after the pullout from the dive. In steep dives with dive recovery flaps extended the throttles may be closed completely without danger.
a. The diving speed is restricted as indicated on the placard (figure 25) €" a copy of which is posted in the cockpit of each airplane. 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.
b. The speed at which the above condition occurs depends upon the altitude and the acceleration (or G's) which is being applied in a pullout. Figure 25 shows the placard consisting of three curves of indicated airspeed plotted against acceleration and indicates the safe range at the altitudes shown on each curve.
c. For example: If a straight dive is made in excess of 360 mph (indicated) at 20,000 feet, the airplane will become nose heavy and start to buffet. Or if a pullout of over 4.5 G's is made at 300 mph at 20,000 feet, the same condition will be evident.
d. When the above conditions are noticed, the following action should be taken immediately.
(1) In accelerated maneuvers (dive pullouts or steep turns) buffeting may be stopped by reducing the acceleration.
(2) In steady dives at high speed, buffeting may be stopped by reducing the airplane speed and pulling out using minimum acceleration. Use the elevator tab (figure 4-35) if necessary to assist recovery.
WARNING
Elevator tab must be used with care in order to prevent an extreme tail heavy condition after buffeting stops.
f. DIVE RECOVERY FLAPS.€"P-38L and Later P38J airplanes are provided with dive recovery flaps to improve the dive recovery characteristics of the airplane.
As described above, the airplane without these flaps becomes very nose heavy and starts to buffet above placard dive speeds. This condition is caused by a high speed stall and a consequent decrease in lift in the wing producing the nose heavy condition.
The dive recovery flaps which are installed under the wings between the booms and the ailerons, restore the lift to this portion of the wing and thus cause the uncontrollable nose heaviness to occur at a higher speed. The flaps also add some drag to the airplane, which in conjunction with the higher allowable dive speed, permits safe dives at a much steeper diving angle.
The dive recovery flaps should be extended before starting the dive or immediately after the dive has started before a buffeting speed has been reached. If the airplane is buffeting before the dive recovery flaps are extended, the buffeting will momentarily increase and then diminish. With these flaps extended, the nose heaviness is definitely reduced but the diving speed should never be allowed to exceed the placard by more than 15 or 20 mph.
With the dive recovery flaps extended before entering the dive, angles of dive up to 45? may be safely accomplished. Without dive recovery flaps extended, the maximum angle for extended dives is 15?. Diving characteristics are better with power off than with power on.
WARNING
Although the dive recovery flaps greatly improve the diving characteristics of the. airplane, dangerous buffeting and nose heaviness will still be encountered at diving angles above 45? if the diving speed is allowed to exceed the placard limits by more than 15 to 20 mph.


_____

Bull_dog_
04-07-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
I wonder, Gibbage....is it a limit of the engine like, say, the muzzle flashes were a limit of the engine??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learned a long time ago that for some reason there is a tendancy amongst computer programmers to use the word "can't" in place "don't want to".

It is not universal, but rather a generalization based on considerable experience working with programmers doing ERP projects... I see it amongst business managers as well.

The reality is that only the laws of physics "can't" is really a barrier, that absolutely can not be crossed...everything else is possible, although maybe not practical or outside the resources.

The engine is a limitation, but just look....suddenly we get a new fm and viola! Suddenly what couldn't be done is being done...so maybe it is really, I don't want to or it is not practical given the cost etc...

Words have precise meanings...choose them well!

workky
04-10-2005, 07:57 PM
The P-38L was the final production version of the Lightning and was numerically the most important of all the Lightning versions. Lockheed built 3810 P-38Ls and Consolidated-Vultee at Nashville built 113 more. The P-38L was powered by 1475 hp Allison V-1710-111/113 engines with a war emergency rating of 1600 hp at 28,700 feet and a military rating of 1475 hp at 30,000 feet. Except for the more powerful engines, the P-38L was generally quite similar to the previous P-38J.

The P-38L was produced in two blocks. The 1290 P-38L-1-LOs were similar to the P-38J-25-LOs except for the new engines. Some were modified by the USAAF as TP-38L-1-LO two-seat familiarization trainers. The 2520 P-38L-5-LOs had submerged fuel pumps and, after the unsatisfactory testing fourteen five-inch HVAR on zero-length launchers beneath the wing outer panel, underwing rocket "trees" for ten five-inch rockets were mounted. The racks underneath the wing center sections were strengthened to enable either 2000-lb bombs or 300-US gallon drop tanks to be carried.

Like the P-38J, the P-38L could be fitted with either a glazed bombardier station or bombing radar in the nose.

P-38L-1-LO Ser No 44-23601 was fitted with three 0.60-inch machine guns in a postwar experiment. However, tests at Elgin AFB in 1946 were not successful. The guns themselves betrayed structural deficiencies, and the shell links failed whenever the aircraft underwent either positive or negative acceleration.

P-38L-1-LO Serial No 44-24649 was modified as a specialized ground strafing version with eight 0.50-inch guns in the nose and two underwing pods each carrying two more 0.50-in machine guns

P-38L-5-LO Ser No 44-25605 was rebuilt by Hindustan Aircraft in India as a special VIP aircraft for a General Stratemeyer. The plane had a transparent nose, which made it look a lot like the "Droop Snoot" pathfinder Lightnings used in the European theatre. The General sat in a special seat inside the nose, and the inside walls of his "office" were lined with leather. There were even provisions for a built-in Thermos jug (I won't even ask what was IN the jug :-)). Sort of reminds me of General Dreedle in the movie *Catch 22*. Nowadays, if *Sixty Minutes* were to get wind of such an extravagance on the part of the military, heads would roll.

Specification of the P-38L:

14,100 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs combat loaded. Maximum speed was 360 mph at 5000 feet, 390 mph at 15,000 feet, 414 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 40,000 feet. Maximum range at sea level was 900 miles. At 30,000 feet, maximum range was 2260 miles (with drop tanks). Dimensions were wingspan 52 feet 0 inches, length 37 feet 10 inches, height 12 feet 10 inches, and wing area 328 square feet Armed with one 20-mm Hispano AN-M2C cannon with 150 rounds and four 0.50-inch Browning machine guns with 500 rounds per gun.

There were two photographic reconnaissance versions of the P-38L, designated F-5F and F-5G. All F-5F and F-5G photo-reconnaissance planes were modified from existing P-38L airframes at Lockheed's modification center in Dallas. The photographic-reconnaissance version of the P-38L-5-LO was designated F-5F-3-LO. It combined the P-38L-5-LO airframe and engines with the revised camera installation of the F-5F-LO. The last photographic-reconnaissance version of the Lightning was the F-5G-6-LO. It was modified in Dallas from P-38L-5-LO airframes. It differed from the F-5F-3-LO in having revised nose contours to provide more space for photographic equipment and a wider selection of cameras. No record seems to survive of the serial numbers of the P-38Ls that were converted to F-5F and F-5G photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

In June 1944, the USAAF had supplemented Lockheed's production capacity with a order from the Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corporation plant at Nashville, Tennessee for 2000 P-38L-5-VN fighters. These planes were similar to the Lockheed-built P-38L-5-LO. Delays in getting the new production line started resulted in only 113 P-38L-5-VNs being delivered to the USAAF by the end of the war in August of 1945. Shortly after V-J Day, the remaining 1887 aircraft of the order were cancelled. A similar fate befell 1380 P-38L-5-LO fighters then on order from Lockheed.

After the war was over, large numbers of P-38Ls were scrapped or sold off as surplus. The small number of P-38Ls still remaining in USAF service in 1948 were redesignated F-38L.

There is a P-38L currently on display at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. However, it is painted as a P-38J-10-LO with a serial number of 42-67855.

The serial numbers of the P-38L were as follows:


44-23769/25058 Lockheed P-38L-1-LO Lightning
44-23059/27258 Lockheed P-38L-5-LO Lightning
44-53008/53327 Lockheed P-38L-5-LO Lightning
44-53328/54707 Lockheed P-38L-5-LO Lightning - order cancelled.
43-50226/50338 Convair P-38L-5-VN Lightning
43-50339/52225 Convair P-38L-5-VN Lightning - contract cancelled.

Sources:


Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987


The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.


War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.


The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

workky
04-10-2005, 07:58 PM
P-38J
Through all the modifications leading from XP-38 to P-38H, the basic contours of the engine nacelles of the Lightning had remained virtually unchanged. The P-38J version, which first began to appear in August of 1943, introduced some appreciable differences in the geometry of the engine nacelles which make this and later versions easily distinguishable from earlier versions of the Lightning.

Earlier P-38s had passed the compressed air from the turbosuperchargers through a hollow passageway lying along the leading edge of the wing all the way from boom to wing tip and back in order to cool it down before it entered the carburetor. There were problems encountered with this arrangement. The difficulty in controlling the superchargers caused frequent engine backfires, some of which actually caused changes in the shape of the wing leading edge. The large area of these wing intercoolers also make them vulnerable to gunfire. The P-38J (known by the Lockheed company as the Model 422) introduced a revised powerplant installation, with the intercooler being changed to a core-type radiator located below the engine. The air intake for the intercooler was sandwiched between the oil radiator intakes in a deeper, lower nose. The core-type radiator took cooling air through the central duct behind the propeller and exhausted it through a controllable exit flap, thus permitting a considerable amount of control over the the temperature of the air entering the carburetor. The leading edge tunnels were eliminated and were replaced by additional self-sealing fuel cells in the outer wing panels.

This modification was initially tested on P-38E Ser No 41-1983. The P-38J also had redesigned Prestone coolant scoops on the tail booms. All P-38Js retained the V-1719-89/91 engines of the P-38Hs, but their more efficient cooling installations enabled military rating at 27,000 feet to be increased from 1240 to 1425 hp, while at that altitude war emergency rating was 1600 hp.

The revised beard radiators produced some additional drag, but it was more than adequately compensated for by the improved cooling which made the Allison finally capable of delivering its full rated power at altitude. Consequently, the P-38J was the fastest variant of the entire Lightning series--420 mph at 26,500 feet. Maximum speed at 5000 feet was 369 mph, 390 mph at 15,000 feet. Range was 475 miles at 339 mph at 25,000 feet, 800 miles at 285 mph at 10,000 feet, and 1175 miles at 195 mph at 10,000 feet. Maximum range was 2260 miles at 186 mph at 10,000 feet with two 250 Imp gall drop tanks. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 2 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes, 10,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 44,000 feet. Weights were 12,780 lbs empty, 17,500 lbs normal loaded, 21,600 lbs maximum. Wingspan was 52 feet 0 inches, length was 37 feet 10 inches, and height was 9 feet 10 inches. Wing area was 327.5 square feet. Armament consisted of one 20-mm Hispano M2(C) cannon with 150 rounds plus four 0.50-inch Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. In addition two 500, 1000, or 1600-lb bombs or ten five-inch rockets could be carried on underwing racks.

The 1010 Model 422-81-14s included three production blocks. The first block consisted of ten service test P-38J-1-LOs. These were quickly followed by 210 P-83J-5-LOs with two 55-US gallon additional fuel tanks in the leading edge space previously occupied by the intercoolers and thus restoring maximum internal fuel capacity to 410 gallons (1010 gallons with drop tanks). Modifications, including the addition of stiffeners, were required to prevent deformation of the new wet wing leading edge. The last production block consisted of 790 P-38J-10-LOs with flat windshields with the bulletproof glass panel being incorporated into the windshield.

These were followed by Model 422-81-22s in two blocks. The first block consisted of 1400 P-38J-15-LOs with revised electrical systems. The second block consisted of 350 P-38J-20-LOs with modified turbo regulators.

When earlier J-series Lightnings went into a high speed dive, their controls would suddenly lock up when a certain speed was reached and the nose would begin to tuck under, making recovery from the dive very difficult. The problem would begin at Mach 0.65 to 0.68, accompanied by vigorous buffeting and a strong nose-down pitch. As speed increased, it became progressively more and more difficult to recover from the dive, larger and larger stick forces being required for a pullout. At Mach 0.72, dive recovery became for all practical purposes impossible, and runaway dives that got this far out of hand usually had fatal results. The onset of severe buffeting would, of course, usually provide adequate warning for a pilot in a diving P-38 that he was about to encounter a problem, but it is easy to get distracted while in the stress of combat. This dive recovery problem was so severe that the Lightnings found it very difficult to follow German fighters in a dive, allowing many Luftwaffe fighters to escape unscathed.

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar. These dive flaps would change the characteristics of the airflow over the wing, offsetting the formation of the shock wave and permitting the elevators to operate properly. This innovation largely solved the problems encountered by diving P-38s.

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter.

210 P-38J-25-LOs were built.

In March of 1944, Colonel Benjamin Kelsey reached an indicated speed of more than 750 mph during a high-speed dive in a P-38, which would have made the P-38 the first supersonic fighter. However, it was later discovered that compressibility effects on the airspeed indicator at about 550 mph had given a greatly exaggerated reading. Nevertheless, the Lightning handled quite well at high speeds, and its strong airframe withstood the excessive aerodynamic loading produced by these high-speed dives.

With the increased use of the Lightning as a light bomber, the type was modified to carry in place of the forward-firing armament either a bombardier with a Norden bombsight in a glazed nose enclosure, or a "Mickey" BTO (Bombing Through Overcast) bombing radar in the nose with an operator station between the radar and the pilot's cockpit. These modifications were developed at the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas, Texas. These so-called "droop-snoot" Lightnings were used to lead formations of P-38s each carrying two 2000-lb bombs which were released on instructions from the lead bombardier.

Two P-38J-20-LOs (serials 44-23544 and 44-23549) were modified in Australia during the autumn of 1944 for use as single-seat night fighters, carrying AN/APS-4 radar in a pod underneath the starboard wing. These modifications were tested in New Guinea and the Philippines.

A P-38J-5-LO (serial number 42-67104) was tested at Wright Field and Orlando, Florida as an experimental night fighter with a radar operator sitting on a jump seat just aft of the pilot. The AN/APS-4 radar was initially mounted under the fuselage in a pod just aft of the nosewheel. This pod proved to be rather easily damaged by stones thrown up by the nosewheel during takeoffs and landings, so it was repositioned beneath the starboard wing, but this resulted in interference from the adjacent engine nacelle.

Beginning in September of 1944, a P-38J was used to test a unique method for extending the range of escort fighters by having the fighter engage a hook trailed from a B-24H bomber. Attached to the hook was a standard drop tank. After contact, the tank was automatically attached to standard external tank fittings beneath the fighter's wing. The method proved to be basically feasible, but it required considerable skill on the part of the Lightning pilot in order for it to work. Consequently, this innovation was not pursued any further.

A number of P-38Js were modified in service as TP-38J-LO two-seat "piggyback" trainers with a jump seat aft of the pilot. Some of these aircraft carried an AN/APS-4 radar pod underneath the starboard wing and were used to train P-38M crews.

At least one P-38J was successfully flown with skis. P-38J-1-LO Ser No 42-13565 was fitted with an experimental retractable ski installation.

The initial photo-reconnaissance version of the P-38J was the F-5B-1-LO (model 422-81-21). It had the same camera installation as did the earlier F-5A-10-LO (equivalent to P-38G-10-LO), but had an airframe and engines identical to those of the P-38J-5-LO. The F-5B-1-LO introduced a Sperry automatic pilot, which became standard on all subsequent reconnaissance versions. Two hundred of these photographic aircraft were built, serial numbers being 42-67312/67401 and 42-68192/68301. This was the last of the Lockheed production of the reconnaissance version of the Lightning, subsequent F-5 versions being modifications of standard P-38 fighter airframes performed after delivery.

The F-5C-1-LO was the designation given to P-38J airframes converted at the Dallas Modification Center to a standard basically similar to that of the F-5B-1-LO but with improved camera installations. A total of 123 aircraft is believed to have been so modified. The serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft so modified are not known.

A total of 200 P-38J-15-LO fighter airframes were converted in Dallas to F-5E-2-LO reconnaissance configuration. These were produced to a standard similar to that of the F-5C-1-LO. The designation F-5E-3-LO was given to a similar conversion of 205 P-38J-25-LO airframes. Again, any record of the serial numbers of the P-38J aircraft modified to F-5E-2-LO or F-5E-3-LO standards seems to have been lost.

One F-5B-1-LO (42-68220) was modified with a revised camera installation and was redesignated F-5F-LO.

The few surviving USAAF P-38J aircraft were redesignated F-38Js in 1948 when the USAAF became the USAF and the P designation was changed to F.

P-38J-10-LO Ser No 42-67762 is currently held in storage at the Paul Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility at Suitland, Maryland. I saw it there on November 2 of this year. It is more or less intact, but needs some restoration work before it is really presentable.

Serials of the P-38J/F-5B were as follows:


42-12867/12869 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-13560/13566 Lockheed P-38J-1-LO Lightning
42-67102/67311 Lockheed P-38J-5-LO Lightning
42-67312/67401 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-67402/68191 Lockheed P-38J-10-LO Lightning
42-68192/68301 Lockheed F-5B-1-LO Lightning
42-103979/104428 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
43-28248/29047 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23059/23208 Lockheed P-38J-15-LO Lightning
44-23209/23558 Lockheed P-38J-20-LO Lightning
44-23559/23768 Lockheed P-38J-25-LO Lightning

Sources:



Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987


The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.


War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.


The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.


Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.


United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Copperhead310th
04-10-2005, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Are there any actual test figures for compression/altitude. Flew COOPs in the "J" today and was again frustrated by the very early compression. I was ok, used combat flaps immediately to get out of it but, jezz, it made me paranoid to enter any dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWII pilots felt the same way with the J model. When I was doing my roll rate test's last night, I was getting into compresability at 380MPH. The aircraft is supposed to fly level at 420MPH. You can see the problem. I will check the manual once again, but I have sent the data over and over to Oleg and nothing has changed since AEP Beta. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the sad thing is that i dounbt it never will. Yet fly that ****ed bf-109Z and you get something more like what the p-38 should perfom like. sad ain't it. a plane with one of the best combat records of the war get's the FM of a freaking box kite and the the one that never even got off the **** ground flies like hell on wings.

Jazz-Man
04-10-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
also the roll rate is too slow with the L model, it had the power assisted ailerons and at speed 300+ it was supposedly better than the 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you look here:

http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/RollChart304.jpg

This test was performed by Gibbage, and graphed by me, and clearly shows that in fact the P-38L is the only aircraft tested which rolls too well at a given airspeed.

It also clearly shows that the FW-190 loses it's reletive roll advantage at high speeds, but does not achieve maximum rate of roll in the correct place.

Overall, the aircraft are all modelled to what I would call good standards in terms of roll, with the exception of the P-47. But this whining about the P-38 not having good enough roll has got to stop. You can very clearly see from the chart that's not the case.

This isn't a whine for the rolls to be fixed, as I said, they're fairly close, but lets can the "OMFG, My P-38 is porked in teh roll!!11!!1one" ****.

If there was anyone who wanted to PROVE that the P-38 was porked, it would be Gibbage, but here it is in his own test.

Gibbage1
04-11-2005, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:

Actually, if you look here:

If there was anyone who wanted to _PROVE_ that the P-38 was porked, it would be Gibbage, but here it is in his own test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Roll is one of my least concirns in reguards to fixing the P-38. Dive and stall is the biggest and I HOPE its fixed in 4.0.

VW-IceFire
04-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Jazz....are those overlayed FW190, P-38L, and P-47D roll rates ones done from the game?

faustnik
04-11-2005, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Jazz....are those overlayed FW190, P-38L, and P-47D roll rates ones done from the game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, they are IceFire, from Gibbage's tests in 3.04.

Codex1971
04-11-2005, 07:14 PM
I think my eyes are going....where is the underlying (original) document from, NACA?

Copperhead310th
04-11-2005, 08:50 PM
now why is the d@mn roll rate in the p-47 so porked. i knew something was up but couldn't put my finger on it.

faustnik
04-11-2005, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
now why is the d@mn roll rate in the p-47 so porked. i knew something was up but couldn't put my finger on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is decieving because the P-47's roll starts out very good at low speeds but, once you get fast it sucks.

Maybe 4.0 will address some of the roll issues.

Bull_dog_
04-12-2005, 05:11 PM
Lets hope so...I think the point that I take from the graph is that while Oleg's FM is very complex and fun to discover the nuances of the different aircraft, its accuracy still has plenty of room for improvement...probably on lots of aircraft! Hope the Lightning finally gets some much needed attention.

OldMan____
04-13-2005, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
also the roll rate is too slow with the L model, it had the power assisted ailerons and at speed 300+ it was supposedly better than the 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you look here:

http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/RollChart304.jpg

This test was performed by Gibbage, and graphed by me, and clearly shows that in fact the P-38L is the only aircraft tested which rolls _too_ well at a given airspeed.

It also clearly shows that the FW-190 loses it's reletive roll advantage at high speeds, but does not achieve maximum rate of roll in the correct place.

Overall, the aircraft are all modelled to what I would call good standards in terms of roll, with the exception of the P-47. But this whining about the P-38 not having good enough roll has got to stop. You can very clearly see from the chart that's not the case.

This isn't a whine for the rolls to be fixed, as I said, they're fairly close, but lets can the "OMFG, My P-38 is porked in teh roll!!11!!1one" ****.

If there was anyone who wanted to _PROVE_ that the P-38 was porked, it would be Gibbage, but here it is in his own test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got confused by this chart. There are 2 red lines.. which one is FW190 in game andin RL ?

Also the end of table legend contradicst the coloer legend about P38 and FW190.. I am really confused.