The Forked Tailed Devil

[Vermillion]

Mino, buddy  

I can understand you love of the 38, and I do enjoy a pic now and then.

But please consider that some of peons view the BBS thru a standard 56k connect, and when there are a billion pictures in a thread it can take a while to load.

This thread literally took 5 mins to load just now.

Be considerate of us bandwidth deprived plz  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[Minotaur]

Verm;

LOL

I doubt you ever read this, base on  your last comment.  Thanks for your patience!

This threads loads in about 1.5 seconds at work.  At home, well this is my third P-38 thread.  For the reason you describe.

Stay tuned!  

Mino

[Lephturn]

Juzz,

I like the G model for early,

But the J... I want the J-25LO.  As a percentage of the J models they weren't the most numerous, but there were significant numbers of them produced.  In addition they retro-fitted the boosted aels and dive-flaps on many of the 38 J's that came before.  Nevermind how many J25-LO's were produced... how many J's ended up flying with boosted aels and dive flaps in combat?

And the L model... well... drool.  

BTW... you want to see long range gunnery?  Wait until we have a plane with 4x.50's and a Hispano 20mm all nose mounted.

------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[juzz]

Of the nearly 3000 J's built, only 210 were J-25's. Almost 4000 L's were built. The J-25 and L are virtually the same aircraft: in practice they would perform almost identically in AH, kinda like the Bf109G-10 and K-4.

It would be better for scenario/historical purposes to model one of the more common earlier J models; without the hydraulic controls and dive flaps. The L would be the model to feature these improvements.

It would be fine by me if both "types" of J were modelled; but then what would be the point of having the L?

[Gator]

> ... the P-38's here may be as inneffective here as they were in the pure fighter roll over Europe.

Actually, from what I've read it's my understanding that apart from early high altitude engine problems the P-38 was extremely effective in Europe.  Martin Caidin covers this pretty well in his book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38".  And despite operational considerations that limited them to less than they were capable of!

> P-38J - I don't think it should have the boosted ailerons and dive flaps, as only a relatively small number of J's produced had these features.

Only a relatively small number of J's had these when they left the factory, but as Lephturn says:

> In addition they retro-fitted the boosted aels and dive-flaps on many of the 38 J's that came before. Nevermind how many J25-LO's were produced... how many J's ended up flying with boosted aels and dive flaps in combat?

Lephturn is correct.  While the dive flaps were introduced with the P-38J-25's, kits were produced for "in the field" installation on earlier models.  I also read that this was true of the boosted ailerons, but the source where I read this was not as authoritative as the one for the dive flap kits.  I'll need to check my documentation to confirm this to my satisfaction ...  

[juzz]

 

While the dive flaps were introduced with the P-38J-25's, kits were produced for "in the field" installation on earlier models. I also read that this was true of the boosted ailerons, but the source where I read this was not as authoritative as the one for the dive flap kits.

Again: The J-25 and L are virtually the same aircraft: in practice they would perform almost identically in AH, kinda like the Bf109G-10 and K-4.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 02-07-2000).]

[Gator]

> It would be fine by me if both "types" of J were modelled; but then what would be the point of having the L?

Actually, I believe we need all three of these, as well as at least one earlier P-38.  

To answer the question about the L, we would get the later, more powerful Allison engines, the underwing rocket "Christmas trees" to accomodate 10 5" rockets, the strengthened center section pylons for 2,000 lb bombs.  While probably a bit much for AH to model, the AN/APS-13 tail warning radar would be neat to have, too.  

[Lephturn]

Good point Juzz,

I think a J model with no boosted aels but a field-update dive flap is probably a good compromise.  Does anybody have data on how many J's with dive-flap mods would have been flying around?

Then again... we do have the F4U-1C, so why not the 25LO?    Pyro opened that can of worms.  



------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[Sundog]

Also, in the book on JV-44 from Classic Publications (Great Me-262 Books...these are the same guys who used to publish under Monogram Books)
 http://www.classic-books.co.uk/

Galland stated that the one of the biggest nuisances for the Luftwaffe was the P-38, due to it's loiter capability. They could keep German airfields capped for hours.

Also, in the Great Book of World War Two Fighters, they report about the P-38s ability to outturn the Me-109. In fact, they state that when the fight grew low enough to the ground, the P-38 pilots would dive at the ground and pull-up and force any 109s that followed to auger since they couldn't make the turn (pull-out).



[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 02-08-2000).]

[Citabr]

not to mention the 38 didnt drop a wing when stalled.

it just fell forward even in a turn from the laminar airflow around the inner wings and nacels unless engines were used with unequal torque and full flaps in a turn with drop tanks (ala maguire)

[funked]

Citabr, as much as I like to believe that bit about the "falling forward", I think it applies to situations where the plane is not banked initially.  If you stall at say 45 degrees of bank, you're going to drop a wing because one wing will stall before the other.

[Citabr]

every twin I've flow does this.

I've read the p38 doing this.

I asume it does too  

poor logic?


btw they did not say how high they were banking in the 38 when it mushed out of the turn.

and as for my experience mushing out of a turn into a stall in a twin was always a shallow bank  



[This message has been edited by Citabr (edited 02-15-2000).]

[Citabr]

I look at it as a balancing act which it is more or less.

with a single engine the balancing act is head of a pin and if you add in torque your gonna get dropped to the side  

big old heavy twin has its mass and inertia and airflow over the wings by the props so it feels a lot more like standing on one foot instead of the head of a pin.

[BBGunn]

The P-38 was originally designed with the intent of intercepting enemy bombers and transports.   It took a while for it to mature into a fighter which was not really it's intended role.   The same can be said for the Mustang which started out as a photo-recon and ground attack ship.  The 38's design was unique and it broke the 400 mph barrier a few months after the Corsair to the delight of the Army Air Corp.   The Army in its desire to make a little propaganda sent one of its pilots in the only XP-38 in existence on a transcontinental flight.   It broke the speed record but crashed on landing approach at Mitchell Field, Long Island NY.  Thus a new XP-38 had to be fabricated and a new testing program restarted.   Tony Lavier, chief test pilot for lockheed stated that the crash probably set back production by two years.   This set back was very significant when considering engine and compressabilty problems and the fact that 2000 modifications were made between the D and E models at a time when the US and Britain bably needed a long range interceptor.    Had development gone ahead on schedule it would have faired better in Europe.  Some folks malign the 38 but in its Pacific  debut it showed its toughness and durability when an F4 recon model was shot up by Zero fighters and being light on fuel pulled away from them and escaped on one engine.   In Europe 38's accounted for their share of 190's and 109's  but were pulled from escort duty before they reaced  full developement.   I would not mind seeing the J or L model in AH.   It would fill the nich of long range interceptor/fighter bomber.  

Say Minotaur:  It was good of you to post the trajectory chart- it shows that bullets just don't fly straight out there.   They are pulled down by gravity quite a bit.   Hence the guns have to be sighted in to shoot a bit high so that the bullet stream will be on at longer ranges.  Lastly the P-38 may have been the only fighter to be built in a converted brewery.
I'll drink to that!

[Lephturn]

Citabr,

Every flown a twin-tail/twin-engined bird?  I'm not saying the 38 wouldn't drop a wing in the right situation, just that the twin-tails had a big effect on the low-speed handling of the P38.

One of the main reasons the P38 is such a great low-speed bird is because the props drive air down the nacells and over the control surfaces even when the plane's airspeed is zero.  The result is that the P38 has control authority at lower speeds than any single engined bird of a similar era.

Bring on the FTD... and I'll stall-fight anything with it.    If you want to try a rolling scissors vs. this bird you better bring an Oscar.  

------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
Visit Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH news, resources, and training data.
 http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/