P38 a super plane?

[bunch]

I have only 0.03 posts per day less than you (oops maybe now I have exceeded you)...maybe I am 3years, 8 months younger also?  
Why so angry, Dutch, I did something wrong?  
Who am I? I'm a pilot who lives in Oregon & got bored recently of simulators without guns

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
And who the fk are u with ur 13th post ??

Afraid to show ur real bbs name ??

Who stuck the rasp up your bunghole to make you so rude and obnoxious?

Just as afraid as you ,who can't show his real name either, little insect.

[Crumpp]

ur comparisons with flu is way off but it shows ur hard headed ignorant luftwaffe groupy

Your trying to be funny, right?  Cause this is funny...

Why so angry, Dutch, I did something wrong?

Yes you did.  You slighted the P38 or at least helped someone who was slighting the P 38.

God forbid these guys ever a get a copy of:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764304046

And see what the real deal is on the P 38.  They will blow a gasket.

Says much for the Vought chart.  

I imagine clawing the extra altitude out of the P47 in real mission ate up some gas.   All that weight takes alot more energy to reach altitude.  Only climbing to 15,000 feet probably put the P47 at an advantage.

That's one of the first links I posted, Milo Morani....
Shows how much you read peoples replys.

From the FIRST page:

 

Crumpp writes:

Way more than 1620 sorties you claim.

For a factual account of Operation Argument:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-2.html
 

In short, this has been another round of all hype and no facts posting.  Please give some scientific evidence because the FACTS show:

1.  The P 38 had poor accelleration due to high drag and low power loading.This is reflected in the Zeke tactical trials as well with the P38 coming in dead last between the P47 and P51.

P51:



P47:



P38, at the bottom of the heap compared to it's other USAAF brethern:




2.  The P38's high drag and low power loading would have given it a crappy zoom climb.  This is also reflected in the Zeke trials with the P38 dead last.

3.  The P38's high wingloading would have made it a poor turner and it certainly did not have the Power to weight to compensate.

Looks to me like the Luftwaffe assesment of the P38 was spot on.  Large target with poor manuverability.

Crumpp


Crumpp

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The Joint Fighter Conference? That's your source?



As I stated, in the other thread:

Look at your own chart IDIOT.

It shows the P-38 power loading to be 5.1

The P-51 is 6.2

The P-47 is 5.4

Hardly the indictment you keep making. That is POUNDS PER HORSEPOWER, the LOWER number is BETTER. You know, when you have less weight power horsepower, you have more power to accelerate that weight. Oh, and if you spread that power between two props, you get more of it to the air more efficiently.

The drag difference between the P-47 and the P-38 is not a great margin. The difference between the P-51 and the P-38 is. But the P-51 lost almost 50% of its power by 29K feet, and the P-38 still had sea level power available. The P-47 also had sea level power available above 25K, but the difference in drag is not nearly so great.

Oh, and wing loading comparisons that ONLY include weight and area, but do NOT consider airfoil profile and type are USELESS. Using only weight and area completely ignores the aspect ratio of the wing, which tells you how much lift you get for the area you have.

[Crumpp]

Hardly the indictment you keep making. That is POUNDS PER HORSEPOWER, the LOWER number is BETTER. You know, when you have less weight power horsepower, you have more power to accelerate that weight. Oh, and if you spread that power between two props, you get more of it to the air more efficiently.

Exactly and with two highpower engines you would think it would be much better than that.  Factor in the high drag it has to overcome and it is easy to see why the real world results leave the P38 behind.

Crumpp

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly and with two highpower engines you would think it would be much better than that.  Factor in the high drag it has to overcome and it is easy to see why the real world results leave the P38 behind.

Heh heh.

- oldman (waives at Hilts)

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp


I imagine clawing the extra altitude out of the P47 in real mission ate up some gas.   All that weight takes alot more energy to reach altitude.  Only climbing to 15,000 feet probably put the P47 at an advantage.

That's one of the first links I posted, Milo Morani....
Shows how much you read peoples replys.
 

Lowered yourself to name calling Crumpp. Typical.

Just anther reason why the Vought test is bogus. The standard operating height for the P-47 was at least another 10,000ft higher in the ETO at the time, late 43/early 44.

You still have not told us what the capacity of those dts used in the Vought chart were.

You just can't say straight out, but do some weaseling instead, that you were wrong on the P-47s range for late 43/early 44.

You found some number for sorties flown and then you stopped reading. It is not a factual account but an overview because there is lots of facts left out. Like what P-47s FGs participated. What was their TO times? What was their redevue times with the bombers? Did all the P-47 FGs reach the German border or even penetrate into Germany? Lots more details left out of your link.

I would not comment on other people's reading ability with the lack of yours.  No need to point them out as all can see then very easily.

[Crumpp]

You found some number for sorties flown and then you stopped reading. It is not a factual account but an overview because there is lots of facts left out. Like what P-47s FGs participated. What was their TO times? What was their redevue times with the bombers? Did all the P-47 FGs reach the German border or even penetrate into Germany? Lots more details left out of your link.

Milo,
You can't get around the FACT that the USAAF concedes that in the average fighter engagement in 1944 they had an 8 to 1 advantage.  In fact they planned for it.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Milo,
You can't get around the FACT that the USAAF concedes that in the average fighter engagement in 1944 they had an 8 to 1 advantage.  In fact they planned for it.

Crumpp

 

What has your post have to do with the link that was a general overview of Big Week?

You have gone completely over the edge Crumpp. Yup, for sure, totally lost it. An example of your inabilities.

Confused still, eh Crumpp. Nothing new about that. Where have I disputed what you say above?

Now what was the average in the first week of 1944 and the last week of 1944. Do you understand averaging? Seems not. Another example of your inabilities.

Using your logic , those ~60 fighters that penetrated deep[/b] into Germany during Big Week only engaged 7-8 German fighters while trying to protect those bombers they were escorting.

Keep flip-flopping like a fish out of water. You learned your lessons well from Izzy.

[Crumpp]

Same old Milo.

Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test?  In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.

You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread?  And you reposted??

With the numbers of fighters the USAAF launched to cover those missions they could easily have rotated squadrons and still maintained a numerical advantage.  Half their number is more fighters than the Luftwaffe could launch on average!!

These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s;  the P-38s claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Same old Milo.

Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test?  In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.

You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread?  And you reposted??

Crumpp

Dean's America's Hundred Thousand (you remember Dean, he compiled and edited the Joint Fighter Conference book you are so enamored with), page 604, Comparison of Level Flight Acceleration, table 105. Beginning at 250 mph at sea level, applying Combat power (WEP).

First place: P-38L
Second place: P-47M
Third place: P-51D
Fourth place: P-39Q
Fifth place (tie): F4U-4 and P-63A
Seventh place: F6F-5

Crumpp is fast running out of runway.. Better abort while he can still stop.

So, what unit did you serve with? You know, the one you saw combat with. You must have missed my earlier question.

My regards,

Widewing

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Same old Milo.

Quit filling up the thread with junk and tell me why the P 38 was dead last in the accelleration test?  In fact it is dead last in all the tested parameters.

You mean the link I posted on the first page of the thread?  And you reposted??

With the numbers of fighters the USAAF launched to cover those missions they could easily have rotated squadrons and still maintained a numerical advantage.  Half their number is more fighters than the Luftwaffe could launch on average!!
Crumpp

Come on Crumpp, answer the question for the ratio in Jan and Dec 1944.

from http://www.ww2.dk/ the LW had at least 770 se fighters opposing in the west. Now add the 2e a/c and it will be over 1000 a/c.

The only junk being posted is by you, for example, the Vought propaganda advertizing chart.

Yup that link which you did not read completely. When are you going clearly state you were wrong on the P-47's range?

Where have I stated the P-38 was an uber a/c? Another example of Crumpp's inabilities.

Yup Widewing, Crumpp tends go off on tangents when it gets to 'hot' for him.

[bunch]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes you did.  You slighted the P38 or at least helped someone who was slighting the P 38.

Didn't mean to do that, my point had no ulterior motive.  I actually like the Lightning quite a bit.  It is an unusualy attractive aircraft & am very impressed with how it was maybe the 1st aircraft to be transsonic (even if that is only because it gets transsonic are relativly low speed).  Any plane that is so fast it breaches as-yet understood area of phyisics is FAST[/b][/u].  Just now i was trying to think of the next plane (after the P-38) to be so fast that "weird stuff" starts happening in flight & all i can think of is maybe the "Mach jump" effect with the Bell X-1

[Wolfala]

After reading all of this crap - i've reached 1 conclusion. Crumpp - I don't care what you fly - but i'll take you in a 38 any day of the week, kick your bellybutton and still take #'s.



Wolf


P.S.

Keep in mind that no mother has an ugly baby and pilots are the same way about their aircraft. But there are ugly babies and many second rate fighters (i.e. F/A-18E).

[leitwolf]

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
crump u do like the p38 was the only plane with compression.
take the 109 for instance ...guess what it compressed too

The difference being that a 109 doesnt compress aerodynamically and can be pulled out of a dive by trim while the (pre- dive flaps) Lightning's only hope is to recover from compressibility with the help of higher mach speeds at lower altitudes before he lawndarts.

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
ur comparisons with flu is way off but  it shows ur hard headed ignorant luftwaffe groupy

The ironic thing with your statement is that your blinders are also quite intact and your meltdown with subsequent swearing (in pretty abysmal german spelling btw) completes that picture. Not that this is a surprise but i believe it's a bit over the top when you're attacking someone who's completely new on these boards without any foundation.