PDA

View Full Version : P-38 Fans (Card, Korolov, Gibbage, Machine, et al.)



faustnik
02-27-2004, 01:23 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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

faustnik
02-27-2004, 01:23 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually it sucks, because P-38 will be another plane with unhistorical performance. Max speed at sea level given in AHT for P-38J is 345mph not 370mph!! (combat power) and initial climb is 3700fps not 4150fps (combat power).
At least there will be less pointless discussions about undermodelling of American planes, I hope http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

CaptainGelo
02-27-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

addno isnt out yet, and u belive everything u see? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 02:52 PM
I would not put too much faith in this program. I dont know were they are extracting the numbers. It says some crazy things about some aircraft like the FW-190D9 Late has a top speed somewere around 720KPH level at 5500M. My guess is these are raw numbers extracted from the game without other influances like fuel load, ammo load, weather differances and things like that. So in effect, this is performance of an aircraft with no fuel, no ammo, and in the vaccume of space http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 03:04 PM
Going throguh the program I found a few more errors. Its clearly taking the RAW data from the sim.

#1, Spits dont have combat or takeoff flaps. Just landing. But the program has data for clean, combat, landing, and takoff flaps.

#2, The 109 E7NZ CANT use its boost under 5000M (?) but the graph shots it using it from 0M to 10,000M.

There are a lot of other things that you can tell was extracted from the program like every speed is much higher then it should (no aerodynamic drag) and things like that. So dont put too much faith in this program.

Gib

pinche_bolillo
02-27-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually it sucks, because P-38 will be another plane with unhistorical performance. Max speed at sea level given in AHT for P-38J is 345mph not 370mph!! (combat power) and initial climb is 3700fps not 4150fps (combat power).
At least there will be less pointless discussions about undermodelling of American planes, I hope http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well you are quite correct about the tas at sea level. 345 to 350 mph is always used in every book I have on this aircraft. aht has the lowest data for the P-38 that I have seen in the books that I have. that data is used in every book you pick up that lists performance for the 38. the common 414 mph figure also comes from this chart. where as all the other books I have list its top speed rangine from 421-430 mph at 25-30,000 ft.

about the climb. in aht it is listed as 3,800 fpm. I have aht as well. in the 40+ books I have on the P-38 4,000 fpm is listed in a lot of books that I have for this a/c. the rate of climb in aht is the lowest performance data I have for this a/c in the 40+ books I have on the lighting. also about the chart in aht on the 38. its rate of climb drops of considerably more as altitude increases compaired to what is listed in other books. at altitudes of 20,000 ft the aht chart is considerably lower than that of other books that I have. the other thing that has always bugged me about the speed and climb charts for the P-38 in aht is how the speed and climb drop off at 25,000 ft. now this is understandable for a J model since its hp began to drop off at 26,500 ft, but for the L model this isnt correct. it had a slightly higher altitude rating. so the peak speed for a 38L model should be close to 30,000 ft not 25,000.


when considering turn performance of the 38 there is never any consideration for the use of combat flaps. most ww 2 era a/c did not have combat flaps. thus this was a good advantage for the 38. it enabled 38 to turn with a/c that had a considerably lower wing loading. for those of you that have americas hundred thousand, read about the turning performance of the P-63. it says that the P-63 could get on a 47's tail in 2 turns or less and that of a mustangs in 3-4 turns. it also goes on to state that the P-38 was equal to the P-63 in turning if the P-38 used combat flaps.

as far as over modeling goes. the two a/c I have experience in here at fb are the Ki-84 and the 109K4. since the Ki-84 can run down planes that it was slower than historically due to the american test data and since the K4 can be run at a much higher power out put than historically correct by the use of manual prop pitch. then why can we not use the data for the P-38L running 64" of map at 3,200 rpm. the F-30s in the L model were rated by both allison and lockheed to run at this map and rpm. this would make the 38 about 5-10 mph faster at sea level and 15-20 mph faster at altitude. it would also increase its rate of climb to the low to mid 4000 fpm range.

CaptainGelo
02-27-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vs190.jpg


It doesn't suck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually it sucks, because P-38 will be another plane with unhistorical performance. Max speed at sea level given in AHT for P-38J is 345mph not 370mph!! (combat power) and initial climb is 3700fps not 4150fps (combat power).
At least there will be less pointless discussions about undermodelling of American planes, I hope http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well you are quite correct about the tas at sea level. 345 to 350 mph is always used in every book I have on this aircraft. aht has the lowest data for the P-38 that I have seen in the books that I have. that data is used in every book you pick up that lists performance for the 38. the common 414 mph figure also comes from this chart. where as all the other books I have list its top speed rangine from 421-430 mph at 25-30,000 ft.

about the climb. in aht it is listed as 3,800 fpm. I have aht as well. in the 40+ books I have on the P-38 4,000 fpm is listed in a lot of books that I have for this a/c. the rate of climb in aht is the lowest performance data I have for this a/c in the 40+ books I have on the lighting. also about the chart in aht on the 38. its rate of climb drops of considerably more as altitude increases compaired to what is listed in other books. at altitudes of 20,000 ft the aht chart is considerably lower than that of other books that I have. the other thing that has always bugged me about the speed and climb charts for the P-38 in aht is how the speed and climb drop off at 25,000 ft. now this is understandable for a J model since its hp began to drop off at 26,500 ft, but for the L model this isnt correct. it had a slightly higher altitude rating. so the peak speed for a 38L model should be close to 30,000 ft not 25,000.


when considering turn performance of the 38 there is never any consideration for the use of combat flaps. most ww 2 era a/c did not have combat flaps. thus this was a good advantage for the 38. it enabled 38 to turn with a/c that had a considerably lower wing loading. for those of you that have americas hundred thousand, read about the turning performance of the P-63. it says that the P-63 could get on a 47's tail in 2 turns or less and that of a mustangs in 3-4 turns. it also goes on to state that the P-38 was equal to the P-63 in turning if the P-38 used combat flaps.

as far as over modeling goes. the two a/c I have experience in here at fb are the Ki-84 and the 109K4. since the Ki-84 can run down planes that it was slower than historically due to the american test data and since the K4 can be run at a much higher power out put than historically correct by the use of manual prop pitch. then why can we not use the data for the P-38L running 64" of map at 3,200 rpm. the F-30s in the L model were rated by both allison and lockheed to run at this map and rpm. this would make the 38 about 5-10 mph faster at sea level and 15-20 mph faster at altitude. it would also increase its rate of climb to the low to mid 4000 fpm range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

faustnik
02-27-2004, 03:20 PM
Every relative matchup that I have seen in IL-2 Compare seems right on with my in-sim experience. I'm not quite sure why people rush to discount it. Maybe it is not correct for absolute numbers but, in relative terms, it seems dead on.

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