Luftwaffe accounts of "The Forked Tailed Devil

[Angus]

Bruno, I once mentioned or asked you about the "ami" usage in your posts.
I thought you were a German.
Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".
And even if you're one of them...it doesn'r make it better. Shall we than call the Germans "Fritzies"?
So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.
And as a salute and for yer all healths...a repetition in german text, from Gen. Gunther Rall:
"Die P-38 begeistert mich nicht auf den ersten Blick. Zwei Motoren und eine Steuersaule, die den Anchein erwect, als hatte man sie aus ein Verkehrsflugzeug ubernommen - so sieht kein Jager aus. Aber auch sie halt eine Uberraschung bereit: Ihre steuerung arbeited mit Servo-Unterstutzung, so man das schwere Flugzeug im Luftkampf fast mit dem kleiner Finger fliegen kann"

P.S. Rall is well and still travelling. He is at home now, but his calendar of various events is already stretching to the autumn!

[Bruno]

Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".

ya think..?

So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.

ya think..?

What did you think of my use of 'Ami Jihadists'? Or 'Cultists' etc..?

Die P-38 begeistert mich nicht auf den ersten Blick. Zwei Motoren und eine Steuersaule, die den Anchein erwect, als hatte man sie aus ein Verkehrsflugzeug ubernommen - so sieht kein Jager aus. Aber auch sie halt eine Uberraschung bereit: Ihre steuerung arbeited mit Servo-Unterstutzung, so man das schwere Flugzeug im Luftkampf fast mit dem kleiner Finger fliegen kann

The late Js and Ls with boosted airlerons have been discussed recently over on AGW. I usually wouldn't refer you to a thread where by the best information comes from Crumpp. However, here it is:

Aileron Responsiveness

Scroll down 2/3rds of the way. No doubt the cultists will read it and be back here with their 'that can't be right the P-38s pWnS!!!!'

As for quotes I can post many from LW pilots describing the P-38 in less then favorable light. However, quotes mean very little and none of those posted so far in this thread have any real connection with what I have said.

I will quote it one more time:

The P-38 is fine aircraft and it did well against the obsolete Japanese aircraft. There are occasions where it acquitted itself in outstanding fashion against the Luftwaffe. However, compared to what else the allies had in their arsenal, both in terms of fighters and fighter-bombers, the P-38 was little more then 'adequate'. Even in the Pacific there were 'better' aircraft.

Now ask yourself why are these types of Ami's (Cap'n etc...) so easily provoked by something like that..? They are just fanatical reactionaries and if saying so provokes them even more, so what..?

[Debonair]

"'Adequate'" what exactly does it mean?
It is really a matter of context.
In the context of a fighter aircraft in a kill or be killed mortal struggle it means "better than what the other guy has", sufficient, enough, etc.
If it doesn't mean that, then the pilot is a dead & that would be unacceptable, bad, inadequate.

Originally posted by Bruno
...the P-38s pWnS!!!!

lmao

[Bruno]

"'Adequate'" what exactly does it mean?

What do you think it means?

It towed the line until better air frames became available.

It was the best they had available in significant numbers at the time, especially in NA where it certainly was better then the P-40s and P-39s. It doesn't necessarily mean it was good enough to beat all challengers.

In the WETO it's main redeeming value was its range. As better aircraft came on line they took over that roll. It was no better an attack aircraft then the Typhoon or even the Jug etc... Even in the Pacific compared to aircraft like the  F6F and the F4U was it 'better'?

If you read my post in this thread my point was clear. The P-38 was adequate enough to tow the line until better Ami aircraft entered service. Unless you decide to manufacture an offense from the word 'adequate' like the cultists are doing I don't see much to get upset about.

The cultists claim:

the P-38 was better than average

I asked them what aircraft constitutes the average and they won't answer. Was the P-51 average? P-47? F6F? F4U? How was the P-38 above any one of those? All those were cheaper to make, easier to produce, easier to train pilots on and could do just about everything a P-38 could (equal if not better).

[Debonair]

zOMG!!!!1:noid

[Angus]

Bruno, you can toss around at will, but it will not change the fact that the P38 was quite a unique piece of work.
It's a twin, multi purpose, long range, reasonably fast, surprizingly agile  - and hauls a lot.
There is no axis aircraft that matches the lot, be it 1942 and even 1945. There I mean all categories. 110? 210? 410? Tu-2? Nike? Mossie....??
In some aspects perhaps, but not enough. The P38 owns the seat as the best twin engined fighter of WW2, as well as a runner up for long escort and even strike/jabo. Well, maybe that's just me...after all I rather favour the Mossie...

But "Adequate".....naaa, - how about "Excellent"?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Angus
Bruno, I once mentioned or asked you about the "ami" usage in your posts.
I thought you were a German.
Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".
And even if you're one of them...it doesn'r make it better. Shall we than call the Germans "Fritzies"?
So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.

Angus,
After a while, you just ignore the fact that Wotan/Bruno is every bit as much a troll as anything else, and you ignore the fact that his best tactic is insults and the like. It's the best he can do, and pretty much all he has to offer. Just learn to see it for what it is, and then just ignore it. He'll probably try to reinvent himself again, as he did when he replaced "Wotan" with "Bruno", but he'll be just as easy to pick out next time as he was this time.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by gripen
Knegel,
The report is named:

RAAF command Lightning II report receive date 11 Oct 1943.doc

gripen

Hi again,

this report dont show much new things, but they state that the performence of the P38II (is it a F, G or H??) is ok in high alt, while it get bad trouble in very high alt (above 36000ft) and we dont know if later models still did suffer the same buffering.
I still guess the P38´s had their best relative performence above 20000ft. 36000ft is around the service celling of most german1943-mid 44, particular above it, that the P38 start to get buffering and limit its manouverability badly above this hight i dont would count as a that big handycap, cause there wasnt a enemy to fight anymore. Rather i would count the possibility to climb into a safe alt as a advantage, no matter how good flyable the plane was there.
Since the escort mission in the ETO 43-44 normaly found place between 20000 and 32000ft i would consider the P38 as the right plane in the right moment, with a pretty good relative performence in this altitude, where the 190´s and gunpod armned 109G´s started to get bad.
Of course the P51 and even the P47 was better, but the 1st wasnt available and the 2nd dont had the needed range.

How they moddel the P38´s in AH looks a bit strange to me, they are real lowlevel fighters and probably outturn a Ta152H by easy.

Greetings,

[Angus]

By the time the P38 entered sevice in the ETO and MED, the fight was heading for lower altitudes.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
this report dont show much new things, but they state that the performence of the P38II (is it a F, G or H??) is ok in high alt, while it get bad trouble in very high alt (above 36000ft) and we dont know if later models still did suffer the same buffering.

There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.

gripen

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by gripen
There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.

gripen

Gripen, the later models had dive flaps, the previous models (P-38J-10-Lo and earlier) did not. And the dive flaps DID make a BIG difference in the buffeting, both when it occured and how bad it was.

[gripen]

Hilts,
We have gone through this several times; the dive recovery did not change the speed where the buffeting or tuck under started. The dive recovery flaps just added positive pitch up moment making the recovery possible at higher speeds and added drag to keep the plane out of trouble.

gripen

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Well, whatever you think Gripen, pilots tell me otherwise. And since neither you nor I have flown a real P-38, I'll just have to take their word for it. I certainly cannot justify taking your word for it. I can easily take Tony Levier's word for how the P-38 flew, and how it was affected by compression. Or Ben Kelsey's word. Especially over a British report on the P-38.

[Kweassa]

Well, whatever you think Gripen, pilots tell me otherwise. And since neither you nor I have flown a real P-38, I'll just have to take their word for it. I certainly cannot justify taking your word for it. I can easily take Tony Levier's word for how the P-38 flew, and how it was affected by compression. Or Ben Kelsey's word. Especially over a British report on the P-38.

 And thus, scientific inquiry is abandoned for blind faith.  It is only fitting Bruno describes you guys as a 'cult'.

 Perhaps you guys could form an alliance with the "Church of Bounced Bullets Killing Tigers" cult. I heard they got some excellent true testimonies from guys who say they really did kill a Tiger tank by bouncing bullets and hitting them from underneathe.

 I mean, a real WW2 vet says so, so it must be true, right?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kweassa
And thus, scientific inquiry is abandoned for blind faith.  It is only fitting Bruno describes you guys as a 'cult'.

 Perhaps you guys could form an alliance with the "Church of Bounced Bullets Killing Tigers" cult. I heard they got some excellent true testimonies from guys who say they really did kill a Tiger tank by bouncing bullets and hitting them from underneathe.

 I mean, a real WW2 vet says so, so it must be true, right?

Well, Kweassa, I was wondering how long it would take you to show up, and I'm not at all surprised to see you support Wotan/Bruno in the name calling. How simply predictable of you.

Just so you know, Levier was a Lockheed test pilot, and Kelsey was the Army Air Corps' officer in charge of the P-38 project. Scientific inquiry? How about the entire Lockheed test program, which it so happens Levier and Kelsey were responsible for? I'd say they'd be likely to have about all the scientific data you'd ever want about the P-38.

But you just go ahead with your personal insult campaign and ignore what was said by two men who were tasked with gathering data and testing the plane for YEARS.

The other thing that does not surprise me as that you would think yourself so smart and yet be so ignorant about the subject as to not know who Levier and Kelsey were, and to dismiss them as just veterans who flew the plane. Doesn't surprise me in the least, not from you, or anyone like you.

I would expect nothing less from you than a personal attack. Have at it Kweassa. Join up with Wotan/Bruno. Enjoy each others company.