P38 a super plane?

[Murdr]

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.

Ok well only having select snipits of the TAIC narrative report that you have posted, and the partial intelligence summarys that I have, I would say here is an example.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Well let's check it out Captain!

Looking at the Zeke tactical trials and comparing the P38 against it's USAAF brethern we see:

P51:



P47:



P38 hanging in the back dead last:




Once again.  Facts vs hype.  To coin a phrase, the P38's "outstanding" abilities as a fighter are a MODERN creation.

Crumpp

"the Zeke tactical trials"?  Which one?  Hmm well Tadayoshi Koga's Model 21 was flown aginst the P-38F model so that obviously isnt the one since your images state a P-38J.  So its a safe bet we are looking at the Siapan Model 52s.  Looking at the Intelligence Summary here, I see the F4U-1D, the F6F, and the FM2 were flown aginst the Model 52.  Of course I do not have the narritive report or an intelligence summary for every US plane the Model 52 was flown with, but when you say "P38 hanging back at dead last".  That means what?
"Dead last" among the ones you -sniped- to post?  Oh "Dead last" among Army fighters only.  We are left to assume, I guess that the other Army fighters tested against the Model 21 were all excluded for the Model 52 tests?  Hard to tell without further references as only "select" parts of the narrative reports have been shown.

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

Ok lets do

Johannes Stienhoff, kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s.

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 aircraft 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.  The machine guns mounted in the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape.  Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of these dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear.

Oberleutnant Franz Stiegler (28 victories) said:
The P-38s could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously.  We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up.  The P-38s were on them at once.  They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone.

[Crumpp]

Johannes Stienhoff, kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s.

You should check out II/JG 2's record in North Africa.  They did rate the P38 the best fighter of all the Allied fighters they encountered.  P40's, Hurricane IIc's, and Spit Vc's made up the allied competition against the P 38.

They finished the tour 119 enemy aircraft destroyed, 2 probable, and 18 damaged.

The lost 8 killed, 3 missing, and 11 wounded.

They flew FW-190A5's.

That means what?  

Look at the distances the P38 was ahead of the Zeke compared to the other USAAF fighters in the above accelleration test.  The P38 had the worst accelleration of the three.



We can see the P 38J-25 is the slowest of the USAAF fighters in level speed as well.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Oh, for your interest, I have some excellent account of P38's being jumped by 109's over Tunisia/Algeria.
I don't have to ask if you want it, cos you do, hehe.
Will post it in the morning.
Goodnight

Angus

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

Included in the scope of your book project will you have room to explain the contradiction between simulated combat effectivenss and the historical documentation recording combat effectiveness of the Focke-Wulf FW190?

Will you be able to explain how the FW's were adept at energy fighting tactics. How this plane did manage to dominate as a dog fighter in history much to the contradition of contemporary opinion generated by errors in similation?

Will you be able to manage this task?

Is my assement in error?

Is it better to start a new thread on such a change in subject matter?

HoHun,

Thanks for the links. That is a interesting stuff, kind of like this
Open Source stuff.

[F4UDOA]

HoHun,

Don't know what crawled in your shorts today.

But since I am obviously to stupid to do the math I would natually assume that you had done the math.

So please explain why the "math" doesn't prove your point. And no it's not my spreadsheet (It is Zigrats formally from these boards) so you can call me names if you want to but use small words so I don't get to confused.

Here is the P-38L at 16,000lbs, 3200HP stalling at 112MPH CAS all data from the POH power off. The speeds are right from the AH charts.

And BTW 16,000LBS is a VERY, VERY light P-38L at 40% fuel and it should accerate like a rocket.

P-38L Spreadsheet

Here is the F4U-1D 11,300lbs also 40% fuel, 2300HP, Stall power off 98MPH CAS all data from the POH speed from NAVAIR and the AH charts with external stores pylons. FYI 11,300LBS is the interceptor loadout used by the Navy.

F4U-1D Spreadsheet

Notice the P-38L neither climbs or accelerates better than the F4U-1D at any speed. The climb of the F4U I believe is artificially high due to the fact that cowl flaps are 1/3 open during climb reducing climb somewhat relative to accelleration. Never the less when the "Math" is done it certainly doesn't agree with common perception which is the point I was trying to make.

Maybe someone of higher intellect could please show me what all this means. But type slowly because I don't read very fast.

[BUG_EAF322]

"It outran 109's and 190 on the deck "

Why didn't u quote this either crummp ??

u getting selective?

strange.

because i don't believe that either.

[Crumpp]

It is exactly the same stuff posted before Bug!!  You  P 38 fans have selective reading skills.

Now I will say that I don't see where the P 38J-25 does 365mph on the deck.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Is it better to start a new thread on such a change in subject matter?

Start a new thread and I will be glad to chime in.

Crumpp

[BUG_EAF322]

Nice way to talk around the question.

[straffo]

from Dev update

we also plan on introducing the P-38G and P-38J

Why do I imagine some people shaking and salivating ?

[BUG_EAF322]

Its gonna be the best patch ever.

[F4UDOA]

Bug,

Would you rather see the F or the G?

What does the J give you that the L doesn't?

I have seen it listed at a higher top speed than the L at alt but not the whole speed range.

[BUG_EAF322]

I am waiting 3 years for any new type

no complaints here

i thought the G was more builded as the F so G is ok

not sure dough

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>But type slowly because I don't read very fast.

You're the fastest learner on this forum, and I think very highly of you. Your open-minded move to bring in that spreadsheet to keep this discussion rational has completely restored my faith in you.

I'm sorry if my comment appeared offensive - it was not meant to be. It was meant to challenge what I saw as resignation into a serious misunderstanding, but despite my apparent eloquence in what is a foreign language for me I sometimes lose control of the emotional message of my words.

To sum it up, the spreadsheet you provided looks like a great new tool and it might actually be that we're just a small step from reaching complete agreement now :-)

So, if you're ready, let's have another look at the issue:

Take either of the spreadsheets and on the sheet "Data Entry" change the cell "Z12" containing the acceleration formula by appending "*v". Copy the new formula down the entire column.

Look at the (former) acceleration vs. climb rate over speed chart.

The former acceleration graph and the climb rate graph are identical now except for a constant factor.

"v", the factor we just applied to acceleration, is the airspeed. It's not an independend variable but a constant since for comparison, we deliberately pick a specific airspeed.

What the identically shaped but differently scaled graphs show us now is that - as long as we stick to our arbitrary comparison airspeed - acceleration and climb are linked by a constant factor.

Thus, same aircraft that has the better climb at any given speed also out-accelerates the other aircraft at that given speed by the same factor.

(It only gets complicated when you begin to compare acceleration/climb at different speeds. Acceleration/climb are a pair of Siamese twins at any constant speed, though.)

How does it look now? :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

"acceleration and climb are linked by a constant factor"

Hmm. So a tip-to accelerator from say 160 mph would be a Spit VIII?