Author Topic: 3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe (Read 1359 times)

1K3 · « **on:** December 18, 2005, 11:27:37 PM »

P-38H

P-38H is the main P-38 in ETO in 1943. Externally it looks like P-38G but it's powered by P-38J's engine (Allison V-1710-89/91). P-38H still retains the P-38G's interior front screen armor Some performance notes, Maximum speed was 402 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 6.5 minutes.

Fw-190A-6

The A-6 (along with 110G and 410B) is the main single engine bomber destroyer in ETO 1943. 190A-6's wing was redesigned and lightened to accomodate out-board MG-151 cannons instead of MG-FFs.

(* note: before HTC can add Fw-190A-6 HTC must first delete Fw-190A-5 then add Fw-190A-4 and A-6)

Me-410B

The last *Destroyer* used by Luftwaffe. It entered service in May '43

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2005, 06:56:28 PM »

Agreed.

There are more, I'm sure, but those are pretty important.

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2005, 07:06:46 PM »

P38H -- nearly identical in all aspects to the P38G.

Fw190a6 -- nearly identical in all aspects to the Fw190a5. Note the wing was not lightened, simply had MG151s in it. No other difference.

Me410 -- 1000 built tops. Many were test beds. The number fighting the 8th AF would be inconsequential to say the MOST. Not needed at all. (Would like to see it some day though).

Blixen · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2005, 07:21:20 PM »

me410 often got b17`s i heard:huh
38h was far better than g imo turning of g speed of j
drool! me wants it
and p39:0

1K3 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2005, 08:26:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
P38H -- nearly identical in all aspects to the P38G.

yes by the looks, no on performance.

Quote
"As to the P-38H, max power rating was 1,600 hp (combat rating), and this power was available without restriction, beyond the standard 5 minute limit. Intercooler limitations were not a factor until altitudes of 25,000 feet and higher. Up high there were MAP restrictions due to the inability of the leading edge intercoolers to sufficiently cool the compressed and heated intake air. This frequently lead to detonation and engine damage. If you examine the Specific Engine Flight Chart for the P-38H you will see that there are no special MAP restrictions until 25,000 feet. If you compare this to the same chart for the P-38J, you can see the differences clearly. P-38Hs were limited to 54 in/hg, whereas the P-38J could pull the full rated 60 inches. Your quoted rating of 1,240 hp was for MIL power at 25,000 feet. Max power available (WEP), subject to the 54 in/hg limit, was 1,465-1,470 hp at 25,000 feet. However, one could get max rated power of 1,600 hp @ 60 inches, with the understanding that the risk of detonation greatly increased every minute you maintained that power. This is why there was a MAP restriction to 54 inches, which by the way, was generally ignored when an emergency required absolute max power. Engines were cheap compared to whole airplanes and their pilots.

Weights: The empty weight of the P-38H was 180 pounds greater than the G model, up to 200 lb when calculated as "basic weight". When one considers that the P-38H had a minimum of 200 more hp (MIL power) and a maximum of 550 more hp (WEP below 22k), you realize that the minor weight increase is insignificant. Actual performance of the H model was superior to the G in every measurable aspect. In terms of climb, the H could reach 25,000 feet four minutes faster than the G. Acceleration improved by a similar margin.

In terms of best speed at best altitude, the H was slower than the J simply due to the J being able to pull 60 inches MAP at 25,000 feet. However, below 22,000 feet speeds were virtually identical, and faster than the G model. Max speed for the H (at 25k), depending on many factors, such as surface finish, panel fit and state of tune, varied between 402 mph for especially well used planes, up to 408 mph for factory fresh. G models typically were capable of 397 to 403 mph depending upon the same factors. J models typically pulled 418 to 423 mph. I am referencing both factory and USAAF speed and climb charts for both types, as well as official Flight Operation Instructions for both. I am also referencing test data from Eglin Field (for the H and J models)."

Climb charts for the various models of the P-38 were published in Dean's America's Hundred Thousand. They show that the P-38H and P-38J had similar climb rates right up to 22,000 feet, where the inefficiency of the H model's intercoolers resulted in some power loss and eventual need to limit MAP to 54 in/hg to avoid detonation. You can verify this by checking the Specific Engine Flight Chart in the pilot's manual.

My regards,

Widewing

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:01:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
P38H -- nearly identical in all aspects to the P38G.

Wrong answer, the P-38H had CONSIDERABLY more horsepower, was faster and accelerated quicker, not to mention a better rate of climb.

Krusty · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:33:47 PM »

I stand corrected, It's not nearly identical to the G, it's nearly identical to the J. My bad.

1K3 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:09:13 AM »

If ToD is gonna simulate the historic squadrons, fighter groups, staffel, geshwader, ect ect then planes like P-38H, Fw-190A-4 / A-6, and Me-410 should be present for upcoming 8th AAF vs Luftwaffe.

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:03:10 PM »

To what end? ToD is already going to focus on 109s/190s vs p47s/p51s and b17s/b24s. The 190a4, 190a5, and 190a6 are all 90% identical to each other. The 4->5 introduced a 6 inch longer nose and the 5->6 introduced MG151 instead of MGFF in outboard wings (which our 190a8 already has, so no big loss). If you have one, you have them all, and we have one (the a5).

Again with the p38s we have the same thing. 90% identical to a model we already have. We'll be using the model we already have, you can count on it. Do we have the 109D1? The 109E1? The 109E3? The 109E4/N? The 109E7? Do we need any of these? Are we likely to get them? Answer to all is "no". Do we have the P38D? Do we have the F? Do we have the H? Do we need them? Again, I say the answer is "no".

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:09:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I stand corrected, It's not nearly identical to the G, it's nearly identical to the J. My bad.

Wrong again. The fuel capacity is considerably different, as is the performance in top speed, rate of climb, and acceleration.

The H has some drawbacks the J did not have, including a slight lack of fuel capacity, poorer visibility due to the rounded windscreen and the armor plate glass, and the lack of power assisted ailerons.

So no, despite your constant illfounded attempts to state otherwise, the H is neither interchangeable with the G, nor is it interchangeable with the J. You can repeat your position as often as you like, it is not based in fact of any sort. And it simply is not true.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:14:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
To what end? ToD is already going to focus on 109s/190s vs p47s/p51s and b17s/b24s.

So, the P-38 isn't part of the focus? In whose opinion? Yours? The P-38 provided the ONLY deep penetration escort from October 1943 until after the 1st P-51 units arrived, and went operational. The P-38 units were the 1st Allied fighters over Berlin (BOTH P-38 groups, the 20th AND the 55th). But TOD should not focus on the P-38 as a main part of the fight over Europe in late 1943 and early 1944?

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:32:05 PM »

You misunderstand me virgil hilts. What P38 action we will see is readily covered by the P38s we have. HTC must have thought of this, as the 38s were one of the recent updates (it has been a relatively short time since we started getting new planes). HTC no doubt planned exactly how and when and where they would play into TOD. TOD has been on the books for years now remember? So the P38s we have quite coincidentally cover all the bases from early to late war. No coincidence, then, since HTC added them expressly for TOD (my guess). Had they felt that the minimal difference between G-H and H-J was enough, they would have added it.

They, no doubt, like I felt that the gap was a small gap and that the G would do well until the J enters the scene.

I'm not debating that the plane was a couple hundred HP higher than the G. I'm not debating that pilots loved it (but that's 100% subjective in all cases). I'm not debating that you love the P38 and know a lot about it.

I'm debating the need for this craft in AH. I say there is no need for it, as the performance gap is too small to warrant every minor update to every tired aging engine in every early-midwar planeset. See what I mean?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:46:56 PM »

The difference is NOT small. In order for TOD to historically correct, you cannot have the P-38J in October 1944, nor in November, or in any real numbers even in December. The difference in performance is significant. The G is enough slower than the H in speed, acceleration, and climb as to be serious handicap to the 8th AF pilots in the 20th and 55th groups.

Also, the J is too good for it to be fair to bring it in earlier than it was. In fact, we have a J-15, which wasn't available until at least March.

The P-38 pilots shouldn't have to settle for a G when they should have an H, and the Luftwaffe pilots shouldn't have to face a J when they should be fighting the H.

It isn't JUST the P-38 or even JUST the Allied side that concerns me. It's getting the match up just as it should be.

There would be NO changes required to aerodynamic modeling for the H to be introduced, and only a very minor adjustment in weight, if any. The only REAL change would be power. It is not as though it would require completely creating a new model. The P-38 is a fairly recent update, so not much would need to be changed to make it correct.

I would certainly propose and support doing whatever is necessary to get the Axis planes correct as well. There are others who are working on the Axis part of it, and they know more about those planes than I do.

I KNOW P-38 pilots who flew this part of the war, getting it as right as it can possibly be is EXTREMELY important to me. I want to fly the H just as they did, and face the same Axis planes they did. That is VERY important to the immersion factor that makes TOD what it is.

Squire · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2005, 05:10:21 PM »

Me410 would be a great addition.

Pooface · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2005, 05:24:29 PM »

errr, talking about new variants huh??

you are all forgetting the HUGE role of the RAF in the ETO. the mossies and lancs need to be redone before going back to planes that have already been done, just to make minute changes. actually, ive always wondered that about you ike. WHY, why oh why do you request things after they've been remodelled lol

could of said all this before rofl. j/k

mossie bombers NEED to be added, as well as other british bombers, and we need a REAL lancaster, a mk1. mk3 was only really used by the canadians and had merlin ones lol. the british lanc was almost 50 mph faster, and could carry tallboys and grandslams. now that would be a cool tod plane

we need to sort out these things before we start fiddling with a 190 varient number lol