Author Topic: P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?  (Read 2130 times)

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2005, 11:43:53 AM »
Thank TimRas.

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2005, 12:37:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Hmmm...strange.  None of us have implied that at all.  The P-38 was a good all around plane, a jack of all trades so to speak.  While not a master in one area, it did everything well.  That's something not many other planes can claim.  And this thread in no way even tries to claim superiority of the P-38 over any other plane.  


ack-ack


just messing with ya ;)
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2005, 01:37:45 PM »
Think the "wetted area" is supposed to be equivalent to the total surface area - anyone have those?
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2005, 01:52:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ecliptik
But, the 38 has the advantage of a huge hole in the middle for bullets to pass through.  :D


:rofl - that's a good 1
JG11

Vater

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2005, 02:38:05 PM »
Hi Niklas,

>the col order in the table is according to the numbers in the pic
to make it more clear here the explicit values:

Thanks, that's good work! :-)

One thing I'd like to point out is that when it comes to long-range visibility, total area is not really the decisive factor.

Just imagine a power cable, very long but very thin - it's visible only at much shorter ranges than a hot air balloon of the same total (projected) area.

To account for that effect, I'd suggest to try and fit circles into the silhouettes and compare the size of these circles.

By that metric, the frontal visibility of the P-38 comes out a bit lower than by including the area of details that the human eye can't resolve anyway.

(The human eye is incredibly complex, and this is just a quick approximation I dreamt up for long range visibility :-)

Like with stealth technology and radar cross section, aspect angle is everything. No doubt the P-38 appears large from some aspects, but from other aspects it belies its size, offering a surprisingly low visual signature.

The simulations I have seen so far are nowhere close to real life in portraying extreme range visibility, but I've to admit that I'm out of touch with the latest developments :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2005, 07:23:04 PM »
Seeing the other formation 1st was an important factor in WW2 combat, and all twin engined fighters (P-38, Bf 110, Me 210, Ki-46, Mosquito VI... ect), had the disadvantage of being larger than their single engined opponents, and usually, had profiles that were easily identified at longer ranges (P-51 and 109 might be mistaken at several miles off, P-38 and 109 will likely not).

That being said, the twin engined fighters had some advantages of their own, like 2 engines to get home on, and often better ranges. They were invariably larger than single engined fighters, thats kind of a no-brainer.

Its a design tradeoff, all major air forces deployed twin engined fighters in WW2 with mixed results.

So to answer the question, "yes" , to both.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2005, 09:27:21 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2005, 07:47:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
And it was also Galland that ran for his life from a P-38 flown by Lowell.  



ack-ack


What LW pilot wasn't running for his life in 44-45? :D

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2005, 09:40:10 PM »
Quote
What LW pilot wasn't running for his life in 44-45?



 Dead ones.

 Just like the guys who usually have a lot to say about why they died, in the MA :D

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2005, 04:15:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Niklas,

>the col order in the table is according to the numbers in the pic
to make it more clear here the explicit values:

Thanks, that's good work! :-)

One thing I'd like to point out is that when it comes to long-range visibility, total area is not really the decisive factor.

Just imagine a power cable, very long but very thin - it's visible only at much shorter ranges than a hot air balloon of the same total (projected) area.

To account for that effect, I'd suggest to try and fit circles into the silhouettes and compare the size of these circles.

By that metric, the frontal visibility of the P-38 comes out a bit lower than by including the area of details that the human eye can't resolve anyway.

(The human eye is incredibly complex, and this is just a quick approximation I dreamt up for long range visibility :-)

Like with stealth technology and radar cross section, aspect angle is everything. No doubt the P-38 appears large from some aspects, but from other aspects it belies its size, offering a surprisingly low visual signature.

The simulations I have seen so far are nowhere close to real life in portraying extreme range visibility, but I've to admit that I'm out of touch with the latest developments :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


The avgerage eyeball that does not require corrective lenses has a resolution limit of about 180 arcseconds (although the lens is about 7mm, so the theoretical limit is 14 arc seconds at visual wavelengths) - read this in astronomy journals & tested it in R/L situation, very accurate.  
Ever read of binoculars being used in the cockpit of a fighter in combat (other than P-61, which had built in ones to aid nightvision)? It could have proved very valuable for long range A/C identification of what was just a spec to the naked eye, if it was possible to use them effectively.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2005, 06:40:47 AM »
Hi Bunch,

>The avgerage eyeball that does not require corrective lenses has a resolution limit of about 180 arcseconds (although the lens is about 7mm, so the theoretical limit is 14 arc seconds at visual wavelengths) - read this in astronomy journals & tested it in R/L situation, very accurate.  

Hm, I'm familiar with the figure of 60 arcseconds resolution, but that's for "optimum conditions". Maybe it's the low-light, low-constrast situation typical for astromical observations that accounts for the difference to your figure?

Other figures I just looked up:

- Angle difference required to see two dots as distinct: 120 arcseconds

- Optimum resolution when discerning parallel lines: 10 - 20 arcseconds

It appears that the eye does some really advanced image processing, which accounts for the spread in these figures :-)

I guess due to the different properties and distribution of rods and cones, imaging resolution is a rather complex topic with the human eye anyway :-)

>Ever read of binoculars being used in the cockpit of a fighter in combat (other than P-61, which had built in ones to aid nightvision)? It could have proved very valuable for long range A/C identification of what was just a spec to the naked eye, if it was possible to use them effectively.

I think the use of (hand-held) night glasses was pretty common on Luftwaffe night fighters at least. If they were incorporated into the P-61, I'd assume hand-held glasses probably had been in use with Allied night fighters, too. (Do you have details on the P-61 system? For example, could it be used to sight the guns?)

With day fighters, the only one I'm aware of is (again :-) Galland, who had a monocular telescope mounted through the windscreen of his Emil. It was placed in the lower right-hand corner of the windscreen, so I think he used it only for idendification (as you pointed out) and not as a sighting device. (I believe this must have been an early Emil without an armour glass windscreen.)

As Galland's left eye was particularly bad due injuries suffered in a flying accident, maybe he was looking for a means to improve his eye sight. On the other hand, he could simply have been trying to "secure all available advantages" in classic Boelcke fashion :-)

The Luftwaffe experimented with magnifying telescopic sights that combined their image with that of a regular reflector sight in one neat installation, but though they seem to have developed it into a production-ready unit, it was never introduced into service.

With regard to modern fighters, I've been told that F-15 pilots often carry "hunting scopes" for identification. I thought this referred to monocular telescopic sights as used with hunting rifles, but now I realize they might actually have referred to binoculars.

Perhaps an English speaker with hunting experience can decode this term for us? :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2005, 12:49:49 PM »
I think that no twin had a better record than the Mossie.
Depends on useage of course. The 110 had a rather good record I belive, if the BoB is excluded.
But there was probably no better twin than the P38, - well, the Hornet maybe, but that doesn't count.....

AFAIK the P38 was the only one that could cruise on 1 engine without loosing alt.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2005, 12:25:41 AM »
the "two dots as distinct" as distince number is what is important in astronomy, & 120" is certainly in the neighborhood of 180".  As for low light, one may expect the eye would perform better for resolution in that circumstance, as the diameter of the objective lens is largest then (up to 7mm).  In daylight you probably would have < 3mm to work with (theoretical limt of resolution [=seperated with the half height of the gaussian blob that makes up the dot] roughly 30 - 35")...astronomy targets are surprisingly high contrast if no too dim, due to the dimness of the background....but dont get me started

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2005, 07:57:51 PM »
Does the optomitrasts convention come with a coupon for the buffet? :)
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2005, 02:01:20 PM »
Hi Bunch,

>the "two dots as distinct" as distince number is what is important in astronomy, & 120" is certainly in the neighborhood of 180".  

Ah, thanks, that makes sense, and I'm glad to see our figures are in the same ballpark :-)

>As for low light, one may expect the eye would perform better for resolution in that circumstance, as the diameter of the objective lens is largest then (up to 7mm).  In daylight you probably would have < 3mm to work with (theoretical limt of resolution [=seperated with the half height of the gaussian blob that makes up the dot] roughly 30 - 35")...

Interesting, that's something I hadn't taken into account. I assume the better resolution at higher contrast must be a function of the sensor (rods and cones) then and not of the optics.

I'd explain the resolution of 10 - 20" for parallel lines, which is in excess of the optical resolution, as an artifact of the brain just assuming its dealing with parallel lines and providing the illusion of good resolution.

>astronomy targets are surprisingly high contrast if no too dim, due to the dimness of the background....

Damn, very good point there! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
P-38 - Was its size and shape a disadvantage?
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2005, 01:54:50 AM »
ahh, i forgot the rods/cones issue.  if you're seeing with rods you are certainly not seeing as well detailed an image as  with cones, unless looking at a low contrast object