Author Topic: P38 a super plane? (Read 16932 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #360 on:** December 12, 2004, 09:15:12 PM »

Bug,

Pyro is already redoing the FW-190 FM's.

It will probably fall more in line with the tactical trials.

Crumpp

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #361 on:** December 12, 2004, 09:16:48 PM »

I'm not worried i will still beat the crap out of it.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #362 on:** December 13, 2004, 10:14:00 AM »

Quote

F4UDOA:
I saw your comparison of power loadings.
Well, there are other things to bear in mind in that category, some of who may be in the P38's favour.
Now, just pointing out some variants, this thread is already flamy beyond a Spit-109 threadfest, and I didn't think that had been possible.
Ok, here goes. Some factors for the fighter:
1. The P38 has no torque trimming drag. Contra-rot you see.
2. The Span loading. Check it out. (I didn't but...)
3. Wing loading.

All affect the flight. Always bear in mind that it depends on wingloading + power how well an aircraft accelerates until the parasite drag factor overcomes the induced drag. So, that from-the-runway thingie boggles me, and I guess that is why so many acceleration tests were done by opening up at cruising speeds, already airborne.

Anyway, just some coins into the debate, hope I didn't step on somebodys tail.

Regards

Angus

Yes this thread has taken a life of it's own.

Your right about the acceleration from cruise instead of from climb speed. I always find it interesting when real world testing varies from beliefs based on generic assumptions like climb=acceleration and other cliches. There are so many variables such as when you climb in a radial A/C your cowl flaps are open and not when accerating, prop efficiency, altitude ect.

The span loading peice I don't really get because I don't really understand the concept of span loading or at least it's application in a dogfight.

The P-38 definitely has it's advatages, climb, docile stall, no torque. The P-38 is by far the most contraversial WW2 aircraft. There seems to be no middle ground.

WideWing,

I agree on your point about the F4U-1 having trouble against the 109 above 25,000FT. It is a shame in my mind that the F4U-1 did not participate in Europe on a large scale. It would have forced Vought to step up the use of the Turbo-Supercharger and the R2800C in the F4U-3. I can only imagine what would have resulted. Even in AH the last thing you want in an F4U is a higher 109 making repeated attacks then climbing away out of reach.

Bug,

I don't worry about P-38's in AH. In fact I run to them as fast as I can. It is always a very quick verdict. I usually have no problem with them unless I get a real pro like TAC. He has waxed me a couple of times but I usually have no problem with the 38.

BTW, The P-38 has good numbers against the F4U-1D because it is used as a bomb truck. The F4U-1 has a very good K/D against the P-38. And everyone knows what the F4U-1C does in AH proving a point that even an accurate simulation is still just a game.

If you think AH is an accurate reflection of reality then the F4U-1C was the F-15 of it's day.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #363 on:** December 13, 2004, 11:34:40 AM »

With respect of ur corsair wich is not an easy plane to fly. (only a few really know how to fly it)

The P38 is used alot as a bombtruck either.

The P38 has advantage over all cv planes except the perked one.

If cv's didn't have ack i would drool allover it.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #364 on:** December 13, 2004, 12:02:14 PM »

The P38L has this tour

139 Kills 99 deaths vrs F4U-1D
104 Kills 130 Deaths vrs F6F-5
38 Kills 115 deaths vrs F4U-1C
30Kills 51 deaths vrs F4U-1
182 Kills 234 deaths vrs Seafire
26 Kills 25 Deaths vrs FM2

I would tend to disagree.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #365 on:** December 13, 2004, 01:00:40 PM »

Its alot used to kamikaze kill the cv

and not many know how to really fly it

So u could disagree still it outclimbs or outspeeds cv planes.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #366 on:** December 13, 2004, 01:04:38 PM »

I think we are a half inch away from the part of the arguement where you run out of ammo and throw the gun.

Either that or we just start saying nanernanerneenerneener.

So in the best interest of the message board I will concede climb if you give up the speed.

dedalos · « **Reply #367 on:** December 13, 2004, 01:45:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Its alot used to kamikaze kill the cv

and not many know how to really fly it

So u could disagree still it outclimbs or outspeeds cv planes.

That is true. A lot of people use my 38 to pad their scores with

Murdr · « **Reply #368 on:** December 13, 2004, 01:55:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Don’t cloud the issue. You accused anyone who is not in the P 38 click as posting "selective" data. Just as you accused every engineer, manufacturer, Military Officer or Organization who has said anything against the P 38 as being a member of some "conspiracy" to keep the P 38 down.

So answer the question put to you fairly. You made the accusation Now Back it up or retract it!!

Where is the selective data? The documents are posted for all to see and if you were not so blinded by your fandom could see they do show the P 38 has having good points. It did very well against the FW-190A3 and IMO the planes match up evenly. You wish to have a double or triple superiority that did not exist.

Oh pleeeze. I almost responded to your post previous to this one. If anyone is clouding issues it seems to be you. WW wasnt even addressing you, or your posts. He presented his analysis of where he did not believe data was being refered to in an encompassing manner (ferry range vs combat range, results varying over different altitudes, ect.) regarding points not made by you. By the way I dont see the respective POHs where a good part of the references are being made "for all to see".

By all means, take on WW for his jab at you. But please stop with the high indignation that every word in the thread pertains to you or a reference you posted. If WW has a "straw man complex", you are the "red herring king".

HoHun · « **Reply #369 on:** December 13, 2004, 02:06:58 PM »

Hi F4UDOA,

>I always find it interesting when real world testing varies from beliefs based on generic assumptions like climb=acceleration and other cliches.

That's not a generic assumption, that's a law. If you don't believe it's a law, you simply haven't understood it.

Any apparent contradictions resulting from the application of this law are your own fault and can be resolved by widening your horizon.

>The P-38 is by far the most contraversial WW2 aircraft. There seems to be no middle ground.

Try starting a thread "Me 109 a super plane?" just to see what happens ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

F4UDOA · « **Reply #370 on:** December 13, 2004, 02:47:14 PM »

Quote

That's not a generic assumption, that's a law. If you don't believe it's a law, you simply haven't understood it.

Any apparent contradictions resulting from the application of this law are your own fault and can be resolved by widening your horizon.

Dude chill,

Does a P-38L accelerate faster from 200MPH to 300MPH than a P-51D?

The climb/acceleration link is only at a very narrow speed range. Acceration takes place over the entire range. Also radial A/C have cowl flaps deployed during climb where as they are retracted otherwise. The P-51D gets thrust from it's radiator, weight variation, Rammed air etc.

Does that widen your horizon?

HoHun · « **Reply #371 on:** December 13, 2004, 03:16:49 PM »

Hi F4UDOA,

>The climb/acceleration link is only at a very narrow speed range.

The climb/acceleration link is a universal law that is true for any flight condition.

It doesn't transfer between different flight conditions, which is what you fail to understand. If you draw conclusion based on that misunderstanding, you should not be surprised that the results appear illogical - they are.

Don't blame it on "generic assumptions and other cliches" if the truth is that you can't handle the math.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Crumpp · « **Reply #372 on:** December 13, 2004, 04:42:52 PM »

Quote

But please stop with the high indignation that every word in the thread pertains to you or a reference you posted.

Did not think it did reference but when you blatantly ignore the facts as WideWing does you can expect someone to harp in.

Gonna repost the docs because they have gotten lost in the BS of this thread.

First the claim about the P38's accelleration. Let's compare it to it's USAAF brethern when flown against the Zeke:

The P51:

The P47:

The aircraft with the smallest amount of lead over the zeke is the P 38. The P 38 was easily outaccellerated by the other USAAF fighters.

Why? Well lets check out it's drag:

The highest of the USAAF fighters and with unremarkable powerloading it is easy to see why the P 38 lagged behind.

As for it's Manuverability. Lets check out what the competition has to say about the P 38:

It had two engines, good guns, and was fast.

It lacked sufficient manuverability and was a big target.

Luftwaffe fighter pilots ALWAYS attacked the P 38 in preferrence to other USAAF fighter.

Speaks volumes about the plane.

Now let's see what US Combat Pilots, engineers, and Test Pilots had to say about the P 38:

Kind fits exactly what the Luftwaffe pilots say about the plane.

Well, we know it does not accellerate very well and it's manuverability is not very good. Let's see if it can dive pretty good!

Nope. It was restricted to 480mph TAS MAX IF it exceeded the placard limits by 20mph.

That means it was almost 100 mph SLOWER in a dive than the Luftwaffe fighters.

gwshaw brought up a good point with the tactical trials of the P 38F and the FW-190A3. After reviewing the Power restricitons on both A/C, which is listed about 4 pages back in this thread, these tactical trials probably hold true for all models of the FW-190A vs P38 as each plane was operating at reduced power output and gained substantial power during their lifecycle.

These are the trials where the USAAF is trying to develop the best way for the P38 to destory the FW-190 in the air.

The P38 was an good fighter in the Pacific against the much slower Zeke's. It had a much harder time against the Luftwaffe.

In the end we can find no big mystery or conspiracy against the plane. The facts speak for themselves.

The P38 was not a premier fighter in the USAAF lineup. Removing it from the air superiority fighter role and placing it in ground attack duties was the correct call both tactically and technically.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #373 on:** December 13, 2004, 05:55:14 PM »

Call me silly on a clear day, but I can't see much bad about the P38. Nothing spectacular either, except it being the finest twin engine fighter of WW2 perhaps...
I mean, this thread turned mean and ugly, which was not necessary, and shall change no results.
A storm in a glass of water....

Crumpp · « **Reply #374 on:** December 13, 2004, 06:03:57 PM »

Quote

Call me silly on a clear day, but I can't see much bad about the P38. Nothing spectacular either, except it being the finest twin engine fighter of WW2 perhaps...

I totally agree Angus. The P 38 was not only the finest twin engine fighter it was the only successful twin engine fighter that could even compete with single engine fighters of the day.

If you read the documents it has it's strengths no doubt.

Crumpp