PDA

View Full Version : P-38 low speed turnrate and radius - info needed



Hristos
06-02-2005, 12:10 AM
AFAIK, P-38 has wingloading of 50+ lbs/sq ft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's more than Fw 190A-8 or Fw 190D-9, for example.

P-38 also has lower powerloading than Fw 190D-9 or Fw 190A-8. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, where lies the secret of such disparity in sustained turn radius and rate at low speeds ?


Just interested, thank you .

Hristos
06-02-2005, 12:10 AM
AFAIK, P-38 has wingloading of 50+ lbs/sq ft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's more than Fw 190A-8 or Fw 190D-9, for example.

P-38 also has lower powerloading than Fw 190D-9 or Fw 190A-8. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, where lies the secret of such disparity in sustained turn radius and rate at low speeds ?


Just interested, thank you .

Fennec_P
06-02-2005, 12:23 AM
Just a guess, but maybe P-38 has higher lift wing profile?

For example, Yaks have the same wingloading as FW-190, but FW-190 wing is much thinner. Not all is wing loading.

And are you sure P-38 has worse powerloading? Seems odd that anything would have worse powerloading than a FW-190.

faustnik
06-02-2005, 12:24 AM
Hristos, give it a rest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif There is more to turn than just wingloading. The only thing the P-38 can out-turn in PF is the Fw-190.

Hristos
06-02-2005, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Hristos, give it a rest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif There is more to turn than just wingloading. The only thing the P-38 can out-turn in PF is the Fw-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What kind of argument is that ?

I asked why, so please answer with arguments, not agenda.

What is there except wingloading and powerloading ? Drag ? Again, in favor of Fw 190.

Fennec_P
06-02-2005, 12:36 AM
P-38L powerload is 2.2kg/hp. FW-190A5 is 2.5kg/hp. Dora is 2.2kg/hp (all values with WEP)

Dora, predictably, owns P-38. A5 does not.

There is lots other. Wingloading has nothing to do with actual lift or turning ability. P-38 has nice thick wings, FW-190, thin. This is exactly why the focke is low drag. It's also why its the stall machine.

Even with higher loading, P-38 probably makes the same, or more lift than FW-190 wing. Aspect ratio affects it. The flap design on P-38 is also superior and so forth.

Besides, the FW-190A series is so horribly outmatched in power loading they can't beat the P-38 in any category.

Dora, on the other hand, has superior sustained turn rate than p-38 due to much more power.

faustnik
06-02-2005, 12:46 AM
Fennec, what weight and HP are you using for the A5 in that calculation?

Fennec_P
06-02-2005, 12:48 AM
~4900, with 1600hp. 3kg/hp does seem high, doesn't it?

Edit: My bad, should be 1800hp and 4000kg. 2.5kg/hp.

It seems every website I look, it has different data.

faustnik
06-02-2005, 12:52 AM
Fennec,

You are off on both hp (should be 1770 at 1.42 ata) and weight (4106 max loaded). Still not that great but, not as bad as you quoted.

anarchy52
06-02-2005, 03:02 AM
Miracles of FB aerodynamics:
1) Which one should turn better?
---------------------------Bf-109E7 LaGG-3 S.4
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 162.8 189.9
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.39 0.30
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 64.02 57.89

2) Which one turns better
---------------------------Bf-109G6 LaGG-3s29
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 182.2 189.0
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.41 0.36
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 75.14 67.39


3) Which one should turn better
---------------------------MiG-3UD----FW-190A4
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 213.1 214.3
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.32 0.37
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 68.81 83.50

4) Which one ownz the other?
---------------------------Bf-109G6----La-5
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 182.2 184.5
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.41 0.41
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 76.00 75.14

5) Which one turns better?
Focke A4 or P-47?
Answer to that question when I get home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-02-2005, 03:43 AM
I'd back the A4 on this, particularly with combat flaps below about 4000m. A P-47D10 might have a slight edge above about 500 kph. I think it would also out stall fight the A4 at very slow speed, just because the bigger wing keeps it in the air a little better.

Get me above 6500m in a P-47 and I'd place large amounts of someonelses money on a P-47 out-turning a 190A4.

Still, with these two its rarely about turn, more about energy retention and zoom climb and who can leaf stall and hammerhead better.

OldMan____
06-02-2005, 06:14 AM
Tick or thin wing does NOTHING for lift, that is fact (writen right here in NACA Wing Section theory in my hands). Can someone find out what is P38 NACA wing profile to give a look at its data?

Also P38 has a better THRUST ration since the total area of both its proppelers combined is lager than aFW190 propeler. That increases a LOT thrust. At slow speed where P38 higher darg does not make such a difference... P38 should win .

p1ngu666
06-02-2005, 07:32 AM
p38 is often said to have outturned 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p47 has a big wing i think, so its wingloading isnt too bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

if u wanna shoot down p38s, 109s are probably the better bet, similer planes, but the 109 is better in nearly everything

Blutarski2004
06-02-2005, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Tick or thin wing does NOTHING for lift, that is fact (writen right here in NACA Wing Section theory in my hands). Can someone find out what is P38 NACA wing profile to give a look at its data?

Also P38 has a better THRUST ration since the total area of both its proppelers combined is lager than aFW190 propeler. That increases a LOT thrust. At slow speed where P38 higher darg does not make such a difference... P38 should win . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Aspect ratio (wingspan versus chord) is an important influence of turn capability at higher altitudes, as it produces less drag than a wing of equal area and lesser aspect ratio. The P38 had a relatively high aspect ratio.

faustnik
06-02-2005, 11:54 AM
AHT lists the P-38s lift coefficient at 2.17 (whatever that means). For comparison the P-51 was 1.89, the p-47 was 1.93 and the F6F was 2.27. So the P-38 had a large wing with a high lift coefficient.

Gibbage1
06-02-2005, 02:34 PM
Also, the P-38 stalls at 70MPH "dirty" (Well 69MPH in the pilots manual). Whats the stall speed of a FW-190? That will give you a good idea of the wing loading, flaps efficiancy and all that **** without getting into the numbers. From what I remember, the FW's had a rather high landing speed. Some of the P-38's low stall speed is atributed to the lack of torque, but not all.

One of the main reasons the low speed performance on the P-38 is so good is the reduction of torque, the fact that the prop is in front of the wing, and 100% of the flap area is also directly behind the prop. The wing may be going at 70MPH, but the added speed of the prop wash along the major lifting section of the wing makes a great ammount of lift!

tigertalon
06-02-2005, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Miracles of FB aerodynamics:
1) Which one should turn better?
---------------------------Bf-109E7 LaGG-3 S.4
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 162.8 189.9
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.39 0.30
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 64.02 57.89

2) Which one turns better
---------------------------Bf-109G6 LaGG-3s29
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 182.2 189.0
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.41 0.36
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 75.14 67.39


3) Which one should turn better
---------------------------MiG-3UD----FW-190A4
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 213.1 214.3
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.32 0.37
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 68.81 83.50

4) Which one ownz the other?
---------------------------Bf-109G6----La-5
Wingloading (kg/m^2): 182.2 184.5
Power-to-weight(HP/kg): 0.41 0.41
Power-to-wing-area(HP/m^2): 76.00 75.14

5) Which one turns better?
Focke A4 or P-47?
Answer to that question when I get home :) </pre>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anarchy, I just reposted with code tags, to be more readable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A question that arises often to me in this lift regards is also weight lifting capacity.

Fw190A could take off with 1800kg bomb! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif so it's lift probably was not THAT bad at slow speeds...

Gibbage1
06-02-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Fw190A could take off with 1800kg bomb! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif so it's lift probably was not THAT bad at slow speeds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I remember, the 1800KG bomb was not used in combat on FW-190's? (Im no FW expert, so please correct me if I am wrong) and also how much extra runway was needed? What sort of modifications to the FW190 was needed?

The P-38 could carry 5200LB. And that was used operationally. Plus the P-38 had to lift a lot more fuel then the FW-190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Question for everyone. When calculating your numbers, are you using 100% fueled up aircraft? I would use 50% fuel since that would be more fitting. I dont think any aircraft in WWII did air combat on 100% full tanks. OR 25% full tanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-02-2005, 03:31 PM
The high induced drag at low speed should keep it flying pretty well . Similar to other high alt designs like ta152 . Drawback of such high alt design is the topspeed which is in most cases not the best at sea level.

The 1800 kg FW Bombs could be used from concrete runways only some fins had to be removed if i recall correctly.

Bull_dog_
06-02-2005, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Tick or thin wing does NOTHING for lift, that is fact (writen right here in NACA Wing Section theory in my hands). Can someone find out what is P38 NACA wing profile to give a look at its data?

Also P38 has a better THRUST ration since the total area of both its proppelers combined is lager than aFW190 propeler. That increases a LOT thrust. At slow speed where P38 higher darg does not make such a difference... P38 should win . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Aspect ratio (wingspan versus chord) is an important influence of turn capability at higher altitudes, as it produces less drag than a wing of equal area and lesser aspect ratio. The P38 had a relatively high aspect ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm a little suprised that Blutarski was the only one to mention this...outside of the Ta-152, I think the Lightning afaik has the greatest span/chord ratio...this, along with its heavy engine, gave it a poor rate of roll but enhanced its stability and turning ability.

Also Gibbage brings up a critical point...the location of the engine over the control surfaces created a no-torque situation with plenty of prop driven air over flaps, ailerons and especially rudder...Lightning had awesome rudder authority as a result.

The location, size and whatever makes a flap a flap, had something to do with the Lightning's turn ability too...very large and efficient combat flaps. Don't know all the technicalities, but the lightning was a decent turner at high speeds, but as speed decreased it could really outperform many aircraft in real life...not ingame necessarily. It had a performance envelop, like all aircraft, where it performed best...B&Z and oddly enough, slow stall fighting.

Blutarski2004
06-02-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
... the lightning was a decent turner at high speeds, but as speed decreased it could really outperform many aircraft in real life...not ingame necessarily. It had a performance envelop, like all aircraft, where it performed best...B&Z and oddly enough, slow stall fighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Macki Steinhoff mentioned the unexpectedly good turn capabilities of the P38F's which he and his comrades met over Tunisia in his book on his experiences in Tunisia and Sicily.

OldMan____
06-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Tickness and aspect ratio are different things!!!

High aspect ratio= less drag
Wing tickness= only structural reasons.



But remember high aspect ratio wings are low drag but BAD at high Angle of attack!! High aspect ratio is bad for turners.

Buzzsaw-
06-02-2005, 08:16 PM
Salute

If Hristos PM's me, I can send him a RAF test comparison between the P-38 and a 190A, in which the P-38 is able to outturn the 190 at low speeds.

The difference is the huge Fowler flaps that the P-38 is equipped with. They give it very high lift when they are fully deployed.

I would expect that when the patch is released, with the new inertia modelling, that the P38 will be severely handicapped in its low speed rollrate, and thus a 190 will be easily able to outmaneuver it using its rollrate.

Buzzsaw-
06-02-2005, 08:24 PM
Salute

Also the counterrotating props the P-38 was equipped with, meant it had no torque effects.

According to the book AMERICAS' HUNDRED THOUSAND, when the P-38 stalled in a turn, it just mushed outwards, didn't drop a wing. So a pilot could ride the edge of the stall very easily and do a kind of eliptical circle to outturn other aircraft.

The big problem with the P-38 was its high speed elevator lack of response and its low speed inadequate rollrate. When the P-38L was introduced with its power assisted ailerons, the result was an excellent high speed rollrate, but at low speeds, when full aileron deflection was already achievable without the power assist, it didn't matter, and the simple inertia of the P-38's large wingspan, large wing area, and wing mounted engines, meant it was far from a stellar performer.

In my opinion, the problem with the P-38's current turnrate is that the P-38L's dive flaps can be used to assist turnrate. Simply by dialing them in, the aircraft turns much better, both at high and low speeds. I am not sure this is the best modelling of the effect of these devices.

WWMaxGunz
06-02-2005, 08:58 PM
Thin wings without other AOA enhancing devices **generally** (not a hard rule, just a
place to look) don't have as high a critical AOA as thick wings. It was one of the
advantages introduced by Gottingen during WWI and used in the Fokkers DVII and DrI as
two examples. Gottingen wing profiles were close to the later Clark-Y's that advanced
aviation past the primitive stage around 1930.

If your critical AOA is higher, you can get more lift even if the drag cost increases.
Those 2 big props and powerful engines made loads of traction at low speeds I'm sure.

Fork-tailed devils!

Copperhead310th
06-02-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I'd back the A4 on this, particularly with combat flaps below about 4000m. A P-47D10 might have a slight edge above about 500 kph. I think it would also out stall fight the A4 at very slow speed, just because the bigger wing keeps it in the air a little better.

Get me above 6500m in a P-47 and I'd place large amounts of someonelses money on a P-47 out-turning a 190A4.

Still, with these two its rarely about turn, more about energy retention and zoom climb and who can leaf stall and hammerhead better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At altitudes greater than 25,00 feet the P-47 is UNMATCHED in this sim with exetption to the Ta-152. Up high the Ta is the only thing you need to worry about in a Jug.

TAGERT.
06-02-2005, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristos:
AFAIK, P-38 has wingloading of 50+ lbs/sq ft. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's more than Fw 190A-8 or Fw 190D-9, for example.

P-38 also has lower powerloading than Fw 190D-9 or Fw 190A-8. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, where lies the secret of such disparity in sustained turn radius and rate at low speeds ?


Just interested, thank you . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple.. God loves a winner! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bolillo_loco
06-03-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

If Hristos PM's me, I can send him a RAF test comparison between the P-38 and a 190A, in which the P-38 is able to outturn the 190 at low speeds.

The difference is the huge Fowler flaps that the P-38 is equipped with. They give it very high lift when they are fully deployed.

I would expect that when the patch is released, with the new inertia modelling, that the P38 will be severely handicapped in its low speed rollrate, and thus a 190 will be easily able to outmaneuver it using its rollrate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you know which 38F was used? I've seen copies of this report, but the test just stated 38F. judging by the date of the test and the fact that most 38Fs were not 38F-15s that had the maneouver flap settings this test is of a 38 that did not have combat flaps.

130 ish 38F-1-LO were built
100 ish 38F-5-LO were built
30 ish 38F-13-LO were built
121 is 38F-15-LO were built.....get the drift, about 1 in 3 38Fs were the F-15s with combat flaps.

bolillo_loco
06-03-2005, 09:08 AM
Hristos, spend the 16+ dollars and purchase this book. It is the only book you really need on the P-38. In this book you can find more reasons to hate the P-38. you may also be able to find more reasons to pick on the a/c if you purchase this book.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096293595...nce&s=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962935956/qid=1117811212/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-6943208-6456929?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846)

Hristo_
06-03-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Hristos, spend the 16+ dollars and purchase this book. It is the only book you really need on the P-38. In this book you can find more reasons to hate the P-38. you may also be able to find more reasons to pick on the a/c if you purchase this book.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096293595...nce&s=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962935956/qid=1117811212/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-6943208-6456929?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be so paranoid. If I ask a question, it is just that - a question.

Blutarski2004
06-03-2005, 10:25 AM
Here is the exact quote from Steinhoff's book, MESSERSCHMITTS OVER SICILY -

QUOTE -
I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign. Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined fighter was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening.
- UNQUOTE

IIRC, these Lightnings were P-38F models of the 14th Fighter Group, perhaps the only Lightning-equipped formation whose pilots had actually had any serious training in the P-38 prior to combat commitment.

Blackdog5555
06-03-2005, 06:05 PM
The issue of turn radius and turn time is really only academic. IRL, the limiting factor in high speed turning was the pilot. Just like in the game, if you turn too tight you black out. So whats the point of having a great turner if it just makes you black out. Also, IRL, stick force is a major issue. Over 300 mph most AC, the stick forces are too/became too heavy for the pilot, eg the zero. The P38J had hydrolic action forthe stick so stick force wasnt an issue. McGuire said, never turn more than 90 degress and never slower than 300mph. But the P38 is ironically about the only plane in PF that you cant do a stall turn in. with the fowler flaps and low wing loading and zero torque the late 38 was noted as a great stall turner. most 38 fans know this.....also the compressability issue is exagerated in the 38 under 10,000 feet. Its been well posted. It (early 38s)was disliked for its lack of heating, mechanical problems, large size, and high altitude compressability in a dive, not for its excellant performance. Cheers

bolillo_loco
06-04-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Hristos, spend the 16+ dollars and purchase this book. It is the only book you really need on the P-38. In this book you can find more reasons to hate the P-38. you may also be able to find more reasons to pick on the a/c if you purchase this book.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096293595...nce&s=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962935956/qid=1117811212/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-6943208-6456929?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be so paranoid. If I ask a question, it is just that - a question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hristo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I was hoping that you would buy the book

me paranoid????? whos paranoid??? looks over shoulder then under seat cusion and asks again who is paranoid??? :O its fun being an i d i o t

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-04-2005, 10:42 PM
Did you read Jeff Ethell's article on flying the Lightning? You should. http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_1.asp

AerialTarget
06-05-2005, 12:46 AM
You don't understand! Hristos is not looking for data. He's not willing to be convinced about anything concerning the P-38 Lightning. His posts are available for all to see and judge in the "Uber P-38" thread. He just wants to see Lightning fanatics like myself go into compression, so to speak.

Fortunately, this thread and his other posts are having an effect that he did not intend. Much good information about the Lighning is being posted. Some of it even I had not seen, especially the German pilot accounts, and I am very grateful to those who posted them.

As for Hristos, I can only say that - yes, you guessed it - if anyone called Hristo or Hristos enters the House of Odin, he can expect a quick, permanent ban.

HayateAce
06-05-2005, 01:25 AM
Why ban him?

Just apply a burst of Hispano + a pinch of .50's to his keister, rinse, and repeat.



http://www.aerofiles.com/lock-p38f.jpg

Hristo_
06-05-2005, 01:42 AM
Strange world. I start a thread about P-38, and amiwhiners hijack it into a thread about me. Oh, the fame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AerialTarget
06-05-2005, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Why ban him?

Just apply a burst of Hispano + a pinch of .50's to his keister, rinse, and repeat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am usually unable to do that to the better sort of aircraft that we allow in the House of Odin, since the P-38 in the game is a rather far cry from conforming to the data amassed in this and the other thread.

Hristos, are you trying to tell me that you're serious about learning about the P-38 Lightning? Because if you are, I can help you immensely. If you're not, as I still believe is the case, then I will attempt to ignore you and hope that people will continue to post useful information for less obstinate people to see.

Jasko76
06-05-2005, 06:22 AM
Hristos

Hang in there - the reson they don't like you is the same they don't like me - we don't fall in line and bow to P-38, P-37 and P-51. We cut them to pieces. And that's all that mathers, right?

HayateAce
06-05-2005, 06:36 AM
Don't like him? Are you crazy???? YOu gotta luv this guy. Hristo accounts for much of my online scoring. You too for that matter.

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

Jasko76
06-05-2005, 07:08 AM
I don't think so, Hayate.

AerialTarget
06-05-2005, 02:27 PM
Aye, you cut us to pieces in the game. You would not touch me in my P-38 Lighnting, were it a real air duel.

Hristo_
06-05-2005, 02:41 PM
I fly under callsign "Hristo".

I fly on WarClouds exclusively.

WarClouds has stat page. Anyone who claims to have shot me down can easily prove his point with this link (http://www.war-clouds.com/wf-stats/index.php?navigation=). Or be proven a liar. Right, HayateAce ?

Now be a man and come to WarClouds and shoot me down.

Jasko76
06-05-2005, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Aye, you cut us to pieces in the game. You would not touch me in my P-38 Lighnting, were it a real air duel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's something we'll never find out... You got a P-38? Well, I don't have a Bf 109 parked in my garage.

AerialTarget
06-05-2005, 08:34 PM
If I did, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here talking to you drips.

LStarosta
06-05-2005, 08:38 PM
Whoooooooooooa....


Cut the hostility down a notch, will ya?

We're all friends here...

BigKahuna_GS
06-05-2005, 08:58 PM
S!

There is lots of speculation, disinformation and just misinformed personal opinon on how the P38L flew. This Flight Journal artical of a real P38L in flight will hopefully clear things up for all.

This is a very interesting read out of Flight Journal Magazine. Jeff Ethell has flown over 250 types of aircraft including many WW2 fighters and military jet fighters.

Ethell describes the Clover Leaf maneuver and then dives out past 400mph IAS without reaching compressibility. I imagine he was at medium altitudes (15,000ft). Since he never reached compressibility at over 400mph IAS at medium/lower altitudes -he never lost elevator control. In AEP/PF the P38 reaches compresibility around 370mph IAS. Compare the real life flight to the way the P38 is modeled in the sim.

Jeff Ethell's Biography--quite impressive
http://www.ethell.com/jethell/homepage.htm

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

It is a quick read and check pg.3

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


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.


Stienhoff on P38:

WWII Magazine: 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.

P38 Pros:

High Aspect wing ratio-- 8-1 chord
Wing aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading (ratio of airplane weight to wingspan). In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed decrease.
A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area,increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in maneuverability, climb or ceiling.

Elevator--High Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver.

Hydraulic Boosted Airlerons--Highest roll rate at speed of any fighter

Low stall speed 70mph

Counter Rotating props-no torque induced snap rolls

Differential Throtteling-to enhance turn and roll rates (see above)
(not supported in AEP/PF)

Fowler Flaps/combat flaps

Dive Recovery Flaps/Speed Brake -pitches nose up 20degrees

No Trim needed when applying high power settings

Very good Climb Rate

Very Stable low n slow--able to perform very high AoA manuevers/stall fight

Large combat radius

Very large bomblaod

2 engine reliability



Negatives:

Cost
Pilot Training to master it
Maitenace-2 engines
Compresibility during high altitude dives at high speeds
Not a problem at medium-low altitudes


____

Jasko76
06-06-2005, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
If I did, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here talking to you drips. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, You'd be crashing it. P-38 was a notoriusly unforgiving plane to fly. And I doubt I would fare any better in a Bf 109, to be honest!