Why is the P-38 so underestamated in Aces High

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Actually, at medium speeds is the P-38s weakness against the more nimble planes.  At medium speeds a P-38 will be chewed up by a Spitfire if the P-38 driver is dumb enough to turn with the Spit.  Againts planes like the P-51, Typhoon/Tempest, FW190's the P-38 can turn with them at medium speeds with out any troubles.    I always tell those that ask for advise with the P-38 is to keep the fight at of the medium speed range if you're going against planes like the Spitfire, Hurricane and N1K2 and instead try to get the fight in the high speed range or if you're stuck in a turn fight to get the fight really slow in the stall speed ranges so you can take advantage of the superior low speed handling, zero torque and gentle stall characteristics of the P-38.  But as with all things in life, YMMV.


ack-ack

hehehe, you can probably tell i don't fly the 38 much

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I have stayed out of this one, and will probably wish I had continued to do so.

First, I'd like to thank those of you who paid compliments to me regarding my collection of P-38 data, I'm not sure I wouldn't trade it for Dan's collection of pilot stories. I do not now, nor have I ever claimed to have the P-38 covered, I even learn stuff re-reading books I have had for some time.

Second, I wish that I flew the plane nearly as well as I have studied it. The P-38 is far more capable as a plane than I am as a pilot. Both here, and in real life, there are/were a talented and dedicated few who flew it, who became almost invincible. It requires a special pilot with a certain touch and a lot of practice. Some will never get it regardless of how much they practice, and I find myself thinking that I am in that category.

Now, to the subject at hand. The TRUTH is likely somewhere in between. I do not claim the P-38 was the "be all, end all" piston engine prop fighter of the period. It was ONE of the best. As is often the case in the world of man + mechanical machine, it takes the right "chemistry" to produce a "match made in Heaven". Certain pilots, Robin Olds, Larry Blumer, John Lowell, PJ Dahl, George Welch, Jack Ilfrey, Richard Bong, and of course Thomas McGuire, were among that large group of pilots with that special touch that combined with the P-38 to make that perfect match.

On the subject of power loading and wing loading, the P-38 does well in power loading when compared to most U.S. fighters, and the truth is that plain simplified wing loading calculations using nothing more than square feet of wing surface area and weight in pounds are at best flawed. If it were true that you could simply calculate lift ability by measuring the surface area of the wings, then there'd be absolutely no need for all of the data compiled by NACA and other groups comparing wing profiles and aspect ratios. If you take time to look, you'll see that there are a lot of wing profiles cataloged by NACA, and their characteristics, both good and bad, are duly noted. They are NOT all the same, and as such you simply cannot do nothing but measure area in square feet and call that an accurate wingloading assessment. Unless of course you care nothing about accuracy.

The subject of autoretract flaps has been beaten to death here, I'd be surprised if there was enough debris left from the subject to take an accurate swing at.

On the subject of power and speed for the P-38L, that has been well flogged several times. Yes, it is common knowledge among most avid researchers that the "-30" Allison has considerably more power than the previous model. It is also widely known that the published ratings for speed rate the P-38L at MILITARY POWER and the P-38J at WAR EMERGENCY POWER. However, it is also well known that the USAAF, for whatever foolish reason, downrated the "-30" engines in the P-38L. While it is true that Lockheed field representatives showed the crews how to turn them up to their full potential, and the ratings are published, it is also true that allowing "field modifications" could open a can of worms best left welded shut and buried. Would those of us who fly the P-38L love to see it get the full rated power? Sure. Would we be pleased with the performance that we got from the increase? Of course we would. Would we be happy with the fact that it would be perked, and also used by every goofy gomer looking to haul huge loads of ordnance and auger faster? Not at all.

There are a few minor flaws in the model, but probably no more than most other planes, and maybe no worse either. Would I like to see them fixed? Sure. Am I going to get bent over it? No. I don't have a conspiracy theory about it either. I don't really think the P-38 is more flawed here than in any other simulation, and it is probably somewhat less flawed here than most, if not all others. And I've been fooling with the P-38 in flight simulations for a good 10-12 years.

The P-38 has its flaws, here, and it had them in real life. It had problems that came from Lockheed, and it had problems that were caused by the War Production Board and the USAAF. But it was a damned fine aircraft, one of the best of its time, and could have been better but for those problems. But the same can be said for many of the other planes of the period.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Turning a plane is essentially climbing function which the plane's lift is redirected to make it possible to initiate and sustain the turn itself, which is what makes the wing-loading in most cases the primary factor in turn performance. However it is also a motion inducing heavy amounts of drag, which is where the power loading becomes so important, since a favorable figure indicates the plane has enough excess thrust to overcome the drag induced by the turn itself.

The P-38 has a high aspect ratio (iirc the highest of any fighter of its era) which results in a lower induced drag value.  A good quality to have when looking at thrust vs drag.  

Just thought Id mention.  I want no part of the underlying argument.

[Grits]

I think the P-38 is the best bomber in the game.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Grits
I think the P-38 is the best bomber in the game.

Not sure about that, but in my hands it has the highest parts distribution rate in Aces High

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Murdr
I don't know, you might want to fact check that one with SaVaGe, Widewing, and Guppy just to name a few.

I readily admit that Widewing's dwarfs mine.  By "all of you," I was indicating the scoffers who think, "It's big so it has to be unmaneuverable."  Specifically, I was referring to Kweassa and his vendetta against the Lockheed fighter.  My apologies to Hilts, Widewing, and the other P-38 experts.

[Mace2004]

You know, I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with an airplane that already has a big hole in it when it takes off.  

[Kweassa]

Moore:

The 109 was not a better climber than the P-38. That's another one of your myths that come from incorrect flight simulators.

 
 Very interesting state of mind. You actually believe in this crap, don't you?

 I'll tell you what. Let's try compare the numbers stated for climbrates of the various P-38s vs Bf109s through 1943 to VE day. Ofcourse, naming the first-hand published source would be needed as well.

 Because, if you actually have any hard data that any of the P-38s would outclimb a contemporary 109 then you would probably revolutionize the flight sim game industry by digging out an obscure piece of data which none of the researchs done for game modelling have been able to do so for more than 10 years, not to mention contradict every piece of existing evidence in plain sight. *snicker*

I've done literally thousands of hours of serious research on the 38, more than any of you will ever do on any airplane in your life.

 Ah yes. Like the DM discussions where you claimed you have expert authority on damage induced by gunfire by just watching guncam films. Sounds only too familiar.

You are believing a myth propagated by fools who think that they can "calculate" the result of a very complex operation by using simple equations.'

 The only reason it becomes complex is because you refuse to accept a simple given truth. We are not talking about any of the various skills and tricks in turning the planes. We are talking about the mere physical properties of the plane in relation with aerodynamical forces, pure and simple. A plane is a physical mass, it turns into the air. Unless it is something out of the supernatural it follows the given law.

 Indeed, a mere calculation can never fully reflect the real life. However, every design process begins with a calculation because there are certain hard-coded laws in the physical world. It's why they call it "the LAW of physics" - not the "tendency of physics", or  "I want my plane to be this way so I can imagine something up and pretend the calculations don't matter phyics".

 Wingloading and powerloading does not account for everything during the turning process, true, but how can anyone claim this as a 'small part' is totally beyond me. It's like saying "ballistics don't matter when you fire a cannon. Chuck up lots more gunpowder and the cannonball will always propel to a good range"

These people will actually tell you, "There's no way a 15,000 pound aircraft will turn with a 7,000 pound aircraft." It's madness; by that logic, the F-15 should not be able to out-turn a B-17, since the F-15 is heavier.

 Not if the F-15 was equipped with an engine from 1941, eh?

 Actually that very comparison is surprisingly appropriate for you, in that you (most probably) couldn't come up with a comparison involving two planes of the same WW2 era with that kind of weight difference, so you had to drag in a modern-day fighter with vastly superior thrust-to-weight ratio coming from a pinnacle of jet engine tech.

 Come on now, surely you see the foolishness of comparing a two different planes with more than a generation gap apart - couldn't you at least have the decency to try and compare other cases where a certain WW2 era plane weighs more than twice the weight of its opponent, and still maneuvers better?

But there are dozens of factors which must be taken into consideration, not just weight.

 Okay. So tell me abut those dozens of factors so we can compare them.

 So far all you've come up with was a vague superiority in 'lift-loading', which basically falls apart against wing loading and power loading, because the supremacy in these two factors is already a marker on how a certain plane has better lift efficiency than the other. No plane can have a worse wing loading and power loading, and yet still be better in overall lift loading - unless ofcourse, like I've mentioned, they've got some kind of anti-G device mounted on the fuselage or something.




Guppy

The problem is, that whenever you go overboard researching any aircraft, you lose perpective on it.

We've had a 190 fanatic like that and a 109 fanatic.

 Actually, I'm quite surprised to see the real P-38 experts withholding their comments in this post. (Or at least, taking an uncomfortably neutral attitdue)

 Despite differing views and favorites they were never the ones to warp factual data nor go over the boundary in claiming absurdities. I've certainly debated on many issues against Widewing or his peers, but mostly the given view on how planes react in a certain way was often mutual. We argued on the specifics - such as the auto-flap retraction debates - but never on the generals.

 Especially, this issues dwells on the defense of AH and its modelling. No modelling will ever reenact the real life for 100% for sure, but there is a reason we tend to think AH is believable, and the relative performance differences between the various planes are quite accurately portrayed.

 This guy, is challenging that on the grounds of faulty modelling, not situational or circumstantial properties. He is genuinely arguing the physical entity of the P-38 holds the numerical favor against the 109 in turning performance, and the way the self-styled P-38 experts in these forums are just keeping their lips sealed in this matter is quite shocking.

 Despite our differences I actually expected them to back me up in this matter, because their love of the P-38 wouldn't go further than where their conscience dictates in regards to simple truth.


 Remeber the turn comparison tests? When AH turn performance testings showed that the 109 had a clear advantage in both turning circle and efficiency, it was proven that AH P-38 pilots made it possible to utilize the situational and their skill to defeat many planes that potentially had much superior turning capablites - as per real life. If they thought that portrayal was a fallacy, and the P-38 should have just plain physically outturned those plane from the start, they'd have objected to it since they weren't the ones to hold back on opinion. However, they all admitted that it was as expected.

 So where are they now?

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Come on now, surely you see the foolishness of comparing a two different planes with more than a generation gap apart - couldn't you at least have the decency to try and compare other cases where a certain WW2 era plane weighs more than twice the weight of its opponent, and still maneuvers better?

Well, there's the P-38 and the Me-109.  But since you failed to get that one, I used a more dramatic example.

Originally posted by Kweassa
So far all you've come up with was a vague superiority in 'lift-loading', which basically falls apart against wing loading and power loading, because the supremacy in these two factors is already a marker on how a certain plane has better lift efficiency than the other. No plane can have a worse wing loading and power loading, and yet still be better in overall lift loading - unless ofcourse, like I've mentioned, they've got some kind of anti-G device mounted on the fuselage or something.

The P-38 had a much better lifting wing than the Messerschmitt 109.  Aside from factors already mentioned by Hilts, the chord ratio was very good for climbing (though not so good for speed).  The wing was nearly a perfect lifting wing.  How else do you think the P-38 had such a good climb rate?  Even at military power, the P-38's climb rate was about four thousand feet per minute.  Explain how an airplane weighing twice as much as the Me-109 could do that if, as you claim, wingloading and powerloading are the only factors in turning and climbing.

According to your reasoning, an airplane with a two foot long, twenty foot wide wing will turn as well as an identical aircraft with a twenty foot long, two foot wide wing.  This is absurd.  Likewise, an airplane with a six inch thick wing would turn the same as an identical airplane with a twelve inch thick wing.  Do you see now?  Or does your hatred for the P-38 still blind you?

Even if you go by "official" ratings (the ones which were often ignored in the field), the P-38 had nearly twice the power as the Me-109.  This did a lot towards cancelling the double weight.  The superior lifting wing helped make up the difference, making the P-38 nearly as good of a turner as the 109.  Then the Fowler flaps put the cherry on top, making the P-38 a superior turning airplane when the maneuver flaps and maximum power could be utilized - in other words, below 250 M.P.H. and 26,000 feet.

[FrodeMk3]

I'm not a 38 expert, fellas, But my figuring is, Alot of the most succesful Lightning drivers in this game, would be successful in any ride they chose to concentrate their flying time on.

As far a for the way the modelling in AH...If HTC used a reliable source(That could be subject matter for another thread) then, we should accept it. Keep in mind, that every single combat encounter is different...Speed at merge, alt, fuel load, Never the same twice. So therefore, Pilot judgment, at the initial moment of engagement, can be the critical deciding factor. No matter what you fly.

[Benny Moore]

Here's something else interesting.



Now, the same source stated that with maneuver flaps, the P-38 turned as well as the P-63.  But that's not all.  Look at the Northrop P-61.  The Black Widow, without flaps, has a better sustained turn than the P-61, P-47, P-38, and F-4U!  The P-61 is roughly the size and weight of a B-25.  Now there you have it - weight does not equal turning ability.

[Guppy35]

Your point Benny?  The AH 38 turns just fine thank you.

First 4 flights tonite in defense of 41.  I never had alt or E.  And I'm average at best in my 38G.  Shot down 4 F6Fs that wanted to turn fight.  Shot down Seafires that wanted to turn fight.  Shot down Corsairs that tried to turn.

Died once to a F4U1C that got in a cannon hit that took the tail off.

I can't figure out what the heck you think the problem is with the AH 38?

I feel very confident that this average stick in a 38G is going to do just fine entering any 1 v 1 fight against anything.  I'm not even flying the J or L and there are some J and L drivers in this game that do wonders with them  

If it's a better stick in that other bird, I'll more then likely die, but it's the driver not the plane because he's getting the best out of his bird

I just can't figure out what you want the AH 38 to do that it doesn't do?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa



 Actually, I'm quite surprised to see the real P-38 experts withholding their comments in this post. (Or at least, taking an uncomfortably neutral attitdue)

 

Basically cause I don't know what the complaint is.  Seems like the AH 38 does what it should, as do the 109s.

And at a certain point it's a bit like arguing with some of our old favorite fanatics.  No matter what is said, it won't matter.

The entire argument seems silly to me.

[Raptor]

After reading all of the ranting, raving and arguements I've read numerous times on these BBs before... I forgot what I was going to say:confused:

[Stang]