P38 nuts opinion asked on il2fbaep p38 fm

[BUG_EAF322]

And compared to the fm in AH

I think it's a bit porked in turning and stalls spins easily
it's diveflaps are a bit overmodelled i think it puts up the nose at all speeds a bit to hard maybe.

Anyway al lw planes easily can turn with u.
the ability to trim out of a dive also lacks.

for the rest it stays a magneting plane to fly.

somehow i like the ah model better maybe because it's easier maybe because i flew it to long.

Any opinions ?

[Kweassa]

Dive flaps definately seem overmodelled.

 As for the turn issues, was the P-38 supposed to out turn LW planes?

 I know it should be able to out-turn Fw190s, but I'm not sure if there's any fact suggesting it should out turn 109s(at least in the sense they do in AH) in the first place. It's a huge plane, even bigger than the P-47, presumably with a higher wing loading than any 109. IIRC the powerloading is less than the 109 too, isn't it? I was always under the impression that the AH P-38 turns a bit too good.

 If it's any solace, I seem to recall hearing that the stall characteristics and dynamics for the P-38 in FB/AEP isn't very accurate - only just barely adequate - since the game initially didn't have any accomodations to deal with twin-engined fighters(especially one with counter rotating props). I think it can be viewed as an attempt to recreate the P-38 within the FB format, which just has a lot of limitations due to how the game was designed in the first place.

 ...


 Anyhow, setting that aside, another factor that may contribute to turning 'issues' in FB/AEP is that generally,(IMO anyways) the effectiveness of "instantaneous turns" or "temporary harder stick pulls" are a lot less than what it is in AH. Many people don't seem to realize that, but it's not too surprising as it is a pretty subtle thing. I've met a lot of people saying that the certain planes they used to easily out-turn in another certain planes in AH, is somehow not so easy in FB/AEP.

 For example, whereas a Spitfire MkV will always easily out turn any Bf109F-4 in AH, that's not so in FB/AEP - and by this, I don't mean the case where the Bf109F-4 has a huge E advantage over the Spit, and the Spit is already very slow.

 It's kinda difficult to explain, but if it were in AH, when a Spit finds a Bf109F-4 behind its tail he begins to turn. When he sees the Bf109F-4 not shaken off, the pilot will simply kick some more rudder and pull harder into a much more steeper turn that bleeds E quickly and "rides" the Spit at the edge of the envelope - which, the F-4 can never follow.

 Generally, in AH, the better turning planes are much more stable in that situation and can easily enter, and maintain that state. The worse the plane turns, the harder it is to maintain that "edge".

 Another way to see this happening is when pulling something into a vertical rope-a-dope: like, for instance the F-4 dragging a SpitV into a vertical - if the F-4 doesn't have a huge E advantage, even if the F-4 succeeds in "roping" the SpitV, he still may fail in the "reversal of status" because while the Spit stalled out first, and then the F-4 stalled out over its head, the F-4 still needs some alt and speed to recover and start maneuvering, whereas the Spitfire can still easily maneuver at an extreme lower speed after the reversal attempt.

 Now, the difference in FB/AEP is, all planes are about equally less tolerant to "the edge of the envelope". If a SpitV finds a Bf109F-4 behind it, the pilot can't just pull the stick harder and instantly gain a higher AoA which the F-4 cannot follow. What the Spit has to do is maintain its corner speed and let the natural difference in turn rate push him to the advantageous position within 2~3 circles. In that sense, in FB/AEP, planes with historically better turn rates do out turn planes with worse turn rates, but just not as quickly, decisively, and also easily, as it does in AH.

 Hence, any turn contest in FB/AEP needs to be dragged into the situation which we refer to as "sustained turn" contest - "instantaneous", or momentary "harder stick pulling" turn, is dangerous for all planes and not very effective.

 I'm not sure which of the two games is more realistic, but that's just how it is in FB/AEP.

[cat5]

Originally posted by Kweassa
I know it should be able to out-turn Fw190s, but I'm not sure if there's any fact suggesting it should out turn 109s(at least in the sense they do in AH) in the first place.

Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts over Sicily:

"Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were, 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."

[TimRas]

From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:
"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."

[cat5]

Do you know which P-38F submodel that was? I'm curious whether the combat flaps setting was used - only the final production variant of P-38Fs had them.

[Morpheus]

I love the 38... There aren't many planes in the game that can hang with it in the things it does so well...

Not going to get into them but the 38 pilots out there know what I am talking about

[TimRas]

Originally posted by cat5
Do you know which P-38F submodel that was? I'm curious whether the combat flaps setting was used - only the final production variant of P-38Fs had them.

Sorry, I don't know submodel. The source (Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft) does not mention using flaps.

[Charge]

"Although at HIGH SPEED the Fw190 is superior in turning circles"

Can p-38 use combat flaps in high speeds?
Maybe that is why FW was better -except in low speed turning.

-C+

[Zanth]

Originally posted by Kweassa
It's a huge plane, even bigger than the P-47, presumably with a higher wing loading than any 109.

Actually, because it is such a large wing (52" wide), I would not be surprised (but do not know) if the p-38 has a much lower wing loading.

[MiloMorai]

Wing area of the 38 was 327.5sqft while for the 47 it was 300sqft.

Weight varied from 12,700lb(empty) to 21,600lb max for the 38.

Weight varied from 10,000lb(empty) to 17,500lb max for the 47.

That gives 39-66 lb/sqft for the 38 and 33-58lb/sqft for the 47.

Open for corrections.

[Zanth]

The 109 was more what I was speaking of...but again dont know.

[HoHun]

Hi Timras,

>From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:

>"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."

This observation probably is not so much a question of the use of Fowler or combat flaps, but due to the inherent limitations of the P-38F.

The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was aware of the P-38's problems, consisting of severe buffeting and loss of elevator authority, and flight-tested the Lightning II "to assess the degree to which these troubles impair the operational fitness of the airplane."

Their report explains on the accelerated stall of the Lightning II:

"It is very fierce, sudden, and results in loss of elevator control. The differences between buffetting and the high speed stall are that the speeds at which buffetting occurs are very much higher than those at which a high speed stall would be expected, and further, the greater the speed, the worse is the effect. When this buffetting occurs the whole aircraft shakes and the evelvator control becomes ineffective, making it impossible to apply greater accelerations. When the buffetting is severe the amount of shuddering of the aircraft is sufficient to make accurate air firing impossible."

The conclusion:

"If it be taken that for a fighter aircraft to be satisfactory, at least 4G should be obtainable without difficulty, it would seem that with the Lightning II such an acceleration can only be obtained without trouble at the air speeds which are to be encountered in operations if the height is less than 15,000 ft. Whilst, no doubt, the aircraft can be operated between 20,000 and 30,000 ft in form of attack involving almost straight flying only, it is felt that under these conditions the limiting speeds which the aircraft may be allowed to obtain without risk of buffetting at 1 G would provide a serious drawback."

What does this all mean?

Normally, the faster you go, the more Gs you can pull. In the Lightning II, no increase of the Gs is possible above a certain speed, and in fact G rate drops again if you approach the limiting dive speeds.

This means that above a certain speed, the Fw 190A which is free from these problems can pull more Gs than the Lightning II and thus turn at a smaller radius, at a greater rate.

By staying at a low speed, the Lightning II can avoid the regime in which it's outturned by the Fw 190A. The suggested 140 mph IAS give about a 2 G turn at 10000 ft, so I'd assume it requires a spiral climb unless the Lightning pilot chooses to throttle back.

The reference to 1 G buffeting in the BAC report could be roughly translated into gamer language as follows: "Even if it's accepted that the Lightning II can't turn above 20000 ft, it isn't make a good boom-and-zoom fighter because it compresses so quickly in dives."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Timras,

>From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:

>"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."

This observation probably is not so much a question of the use of Fowler or combat flaps, but due to the inherent limitations of the P-38F.

The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was aware of the P-38's problems, consisting of severe buffeting and loss of elevator authority, and flight-tested the Lightning II "to assess the degree to which these troubles impair the operational fitness of the airplane."

Their report explains on the accelerated stall of the Lightning II:

"It is very fierce, sudden, and results in loss of elevator control. The differences between buffetting and the high speed stall are that the speeds at which buffetting occurs are very much higher than those at which a high speed stall would be expected, and further, the greater the speed, the worse is the effect. When this buffetting occurs the whole aircraft shakes and the evelvator control becomes ineffective, making it impossible to apply greater accelerations. When the buffetting is severe the amount of shuddering of the aircraft is sufficient to make accurate air firing impossible."

The conclusion:

"If it be taken that for a fighter aircraft to be satisfactory, at least 4G should be obtainable without difficulty, it would seem that with the Lightning II such an acceleration can only be obtained without trouble at the air speeds which are to be encountered in operations if the height is less than 15,000 ft. Whilst, no doubt, the aircraft can be operated between 20,000 and 30,000 ft in form of attack involving almost straight flying only, it is felt that under these conditions the limiting speeds which the aircraft may be allowed to obtain without risk of buffetting at 1 G would provide a serious drawback."

What does this all mean?

Normally, the faster you go, the more Gs you can pull. In the Lightning II, no increase of the Gs is possible above a certain speed, and in fact G rate drops again if you approach the limiting dive speeds.

This means that above a certain speed, the Fw 190A which is free from these problems can pull more Gs than the Lightning II and thus turn at a smaller radius, at a greater rate.

By staying at a low speed, the Lightning II can avoid the regime in which it's outturned by the Fw 190A. The suggested 140 mph IAS give about a 2 G turn at 10000 ft, so I'd assume it requires a spiral climb unless the Lightning pilot chooses to throttle back.

The reference to 1 G buffeting in the BAC report could be roughly translated into gamer language as follows: "Even if it's accepted that the Lightning II can't turn above 20000 ft, it isn't make a good boom-and-zoom fighter because it compresses so quickly in dives."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hey there Henning.

The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was responsible for the infamous Lightning I (Lockheed P-322) with it's P-40 compatible Allisons (not counter-rotating) and no turbos. They rejected these for a lack of high altitude performance and "vicious torque". Clearly, they ordered turkey and then wondered why it didn't taste like steak.

IIRC, the Lightning II was the P-38F-13-LO, and only 29 were procured. Initially, Lockheed refused to sell them to the Brits due to the run-around they had with them earlier. I don't blame them. Moreover, I seem to recall that the BAPC didn't want the P-38s anyway, but were ordered to acquire them.

I have read test pilot flight reports on the P-38 from various testing organizations, and no one encountered the scope of reported problems listed by the Brits. In other words, what terrified the Brits barely fazed the Americans who had far greater experience flying the Lightning. That's to expected.

I recall that when North American test pilots had an opportunity to test a Spitfire Mk.V, they came away impressed by its wonderful manners and handling. But, to a man they agreed that they "would not want to take anything built that lightly into combat". Of course, they were wrong. It's all about perceptions and prejudices. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and so on.

That the P-38 wasn't an especially good fighter at high altitude goes without saying. But, get it down to 20,000 feet and below and it was the equal of anything it might encounter. Naturally, that assumes that the pilot has mastered a very complex and demanding airplane. One big advantage of the P-51 was its relative simplicity to fly. Managing two sets of powerplant controls makes for more work. Unless the pilot has enough time in the P-38 that it becomes second nature, that extra work leads to being busier in the cockpit, and that is never a good thing. That and the fact that the P-51 had a much better engine management system only amplified the P-38's complexity. The P-38L had simplified engine controls, but by then the plane was already being phased out by the 8th AF (along with the P-47) in favor of the Mustang.

My regards,

Widewing

[Ecliptik]

Wing area of the 38 was 327.5sqft while for the 47 it was 300sqft.

Weight varied from 12,700lb(empty) to 21,600lb max for the 38.

Weight varied from 10,000lb(empty) to 17,500lb max for the 47.

That gives 39-66 lb/sqft for the 38 and 33-58lb/sqft for the 47.

Open for corrections.

What about with the extra wing area created by partially or fully extended flaps?

The P38 is certainly not a great turner in AH without the aid of flaps.  Only with at least several notches of flaps can the 38 easily turn inside Luftwaffe and other American ETO aircraft.

[BUG_EAF322]

U guys forget its 2 props giving good airflow over the wing.