P-38 wing loading?

[J_A_B]

One thing that DOES work in AH a lot of the time is a very tight, slow speed downward spiral with your inboard engine cut and flaps out.  I haven't flown the P-38 a whole lot, but I have flown it enough to use and succeed with this tactic online.  It's not as effective as it was in AW but it can still work.

Basically what happens is the salivating Spit driver who you're fighting doesn't bother to chop his throttle and he speeds up in the downward spiral and can't follow you.  No this doesn't work against the occasional Spit driver who is thinking but most of them aren't.  It's also not a good idea versus Spit 5's, but against Spit 5's the P-38 has a large speed and climb advantage and can E-fight them effectively.

I wouldn't want to fight a Spit 1 vs 1 on the deck; P-38 needs some altitude to play with.  If I was alone on the deck I'd do vertical loops and try to get the spitty driver to auger.

J_A_B

[Tac]

thats odd.. the only place where I can actually have a chance of beating a spit is on the deck.

The problem with the spits is that they can dive much faster than the 38, retain a much higher top speed for longer than a 38 after the dive and their zoom rate is almost the same.

When I meet a higher spit, I dont even think I'll be able to beat it. I'll try and powerdive away.. the only advantage the 38 has is its higher roll rate at high speeds, so if you can stay away from compression you can sometimes flat-sciscor into the spit's 6, but ONLY at speeds above 400mph...and doing that is hard enough.

On the deck, the spits suffer from slow accel..and since they dont have space to dive and pick up E, the 38 has the adv. to run away. Stall-fighting the spit only works if the spit is REAL close to you, about d400 or so, making the spit desperate to get a shot while you twist and dodge and turn until the speed goes below 100mph.. and then HOPE you can stallfight the spit before he sprays you with the 20mm hizookas. Problem: Even with full flaps out, at 60mph stall fighting, the spit is STILL very much under control, with little torque affecting it (sigh). Its not until the spit's low accel makes him stall or nose down to prevent a stall does the 38 have the chance to get a kill or get away.

[BigCrate]

?
Why such big gaps in AH flight model???

P-38 compresses below 10k only LW planes have torque modeled things like that??? It kinda makes that game seem like a poorly modeled one.

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=

[Vermillion]

Because BigCrate there aren't huge gaps.

Its funny that you guys were warm and fuzzy with AW all those years, but you come to AH and start complaining immediately. Ironic really when you consider that AH is lightyears ahead of what you use too have.

Torque only for LW? Come on, that doesn't even deserve an answer sinces its just plain inacccurate.  And 38's compressing below 10k? I suggest you do some research into compression, and its causes before you make such a complaint.

True, there are minor issues in the game overall, but it really gets down to nit picky things.  Usually things that some pilot brings up because he thinks it will make "his ride" better than everyone elses.

Autoretracting flaps work the same for all planes.  And while I agree that they shouldn't do that, I see why that "feature" is in the game for "gameplay" reasons.

The rest of the "complaints" in this thread are highly subjective and very open to interpretation.  In other words, its easy to squeak about, but very hard to prove.

[Tac]

well verm, I take any 109 up, get it near or below 100mph.. and pull hard.. that plane will kick over. Try that in, say, a n1k.. it will turn allll the way down to low 50 mph, where the plane cant keep nose up .. but torque effect (plane twisting on itself).. not even feel it. Spit does the same. Im just saying that the 109 and 190 and 152 have a real torque effect on them. Heck, just look at the f4u, THE monster torque ride in the us inventory.. in AH its a popsiclecat that barely has torque effects. All this is one of the things which a P-38 should have a tremendous advantage over the single engined rides in the slow speed torque department, but here its not exploitable unless you vs a 109, 190 or 152. So in my opinion, torque modeling is sadly lacking. that is the one and only thing I miss from the pre-FM change era.

[hitech]

Tac: Our touque is very close to real life on all planes , you sure you are not talking about some other effect?

Torque is very simply TORQUE = HP  / PROPRPM

[Tac]

Lesse... the force that makes the 109 turn worse to the right than to the left.. or that makes the 190 flip on itself if you real slow and at full engine power/wep... the force which made the F4U be real touchy to fly in slow speeds (and in pre-FM change made the plane be hard to land/takeoff/loop with because the engine would twist the plane into a spin).. that the Torque we talking about yes?

[FLS]

The term "torque" is often used to describe the effects of spiral slipstream.
 
What I notice in AH is prop torque and spiral slipstream. There may be engine torque and P-factor modeled but it's hard to separate the effect from spiral slipstream so that you could notice it.

To see prop torque effects just pull the nose up or push it down. You'll see the ball move indicating yaw in response to pitch changes.

The "torque" that rolls a single engine fighter and causes yaw on takeoff is the spiral slipstream. To see the effect of spiral slipstream just fly without trimming. Turn off combat trim and don't use auto trim. You'll notice the difference between full power at low speed, full power at high speed, low power at low speed, and low power at high speed. You can also pull up into a climb, cut power and wait for the stall horn, then give full power. In a single engine fighter you'll roll, in the P-38 you won't.

You'll also notice a tendency in a single engine fighter to roll left in a stall even in a right turn. In the P-38 you'll roll into the turn in either direction.

You lose roll damping in a stall regardless of torque so even a twin engine is likely to roll when deeply stalled and a single engine fighter can roll in a stall with the engine off.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

[Tac]

CC FLS, and what happens to planes at really slow speeds & engine at full power/wep? Pulling G's?

"Turn off combat trim and don't use auto trim"

Tried it, besides from a slight roll to the side there's very little force acting on you. Try it, get a full gas n1k (1990HP in a light airframe), point its nose straight up, WEP it, see what speed it hits until the plane begins to have control problems. WITHOUT trim (all trim tabs on center). I get it to 55mph using a slight rudder and rolling slightly to opposite side of the slight torque roll... before the plane even begins to complain, you can keep it under control easily, with very little rudder and a little roll/nose up or down to compensate..until 20mph, where the plane all by itself dips wing and pulls you into a perfect hammerhead, once nose is pointed down, you regain FULL control of the plane. You dont even have to react to it, it does it by itself.

Is this "normal" torque behaviour for a light, single engined 1990HP plane on WEP at speeds below 100mph?

SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph (using 1-2 flaps) with a little rudder on it.. and you wont even get torque problems unless you really pull hard on it.

F4U-D , full gas, nose up... get to 50'ish mph with just a tad of roll and a little rudder needed to keep it nose up. And just like the n1k, the F4U-D twists its own nose down below and gets you full control just after it does. If you pull during the nose down you will pull the plane into a spin. Read again: if YOU pull. Leave it alone till nose down and its all peachy. Is this what the torque monster F4U of legend behaves like? Ensign Eliminator?

Heck, I may be confusing a term or something, but doesnt all this look weird to ye?

[FLS]

Why would you go straight up? If you want to compare flying characteristic's some component of lift should oppose gravity. To go straight up you need a zero lift AOA. With no lift there is no stall.

I haven't read anything that said the N1K2 had a poor hammerhead recovery.

The Spitfire pilot manual says it's very stable and even recommends keeping your feet off the rudder pedals for most of your flying.

Some people have read that the P-38 didn't snap roll easily in an accelerated stall in a turn. Here's a story by a P-38 pilot who snapped into a spin in a turn. It was his first combat mission. Note that his leader, who was not a novice, also spun.

http://www.p38assn.org/stories_03-01.htm

I think the P-38 dive flaps could be improved a little, I think it should be faster with WEP at 25k and I wonder if it rolls into the turn on a stall a bit too easily but I think the P-38 is modeled pretty well.

You can't expect Hitech to adjust the flight models every time somebody reads something online. You can probably find conflicting data on most aircraft. You also have to remember that we fly a simplified flight model. It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft even if it's as good as it can get.


--)-FLS----
Musketeers

[J_A_B]

"It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft"


"SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph "


I guess you 2 agree on something, at least  



J_A_B

[BigCrate]

Alright i'm home from school time fer my 2 cents .
Verm I think AH is way better than AW.. But AW had more stuff to play with. (ie choose between TAS or IAS, floating gunsight, custom gas %s).. I miss those things you could custom made your stuff to the way you want it.. Here you can't. Both AW and AH 38s was missed modeled some. Both sims had the dive flaps wrong. And I think the speed was wrong for the P-38J in AW. And I also think the speed for thr P-38L in AH is wrong.. It should be able to keep up with any late wat LW plane and at some alts walk away from the 51D. I'm just in search of the TRUTH Verm nothing more.. The P-38 in both AW and AH could use some TLC.
I'm not trying to whine about anything.. Some of the things I whine about the 38 I can correct in my flying. And if yall read my other post. Yall will see I asked some ?s about the how the 38 compresses easier than other planes. Really I want is the dive flaps fixed, auto flap retract thingy gone, and have prop pitch control.. Other than that I'm just peachy with the 38. Now if yall wanna get into the F4U climb rate we can do that to. Hell I'm getting tired of posting some good info about something. And it just getting blown off. Like well we can't use that or we can't do that. Or no one even listens.
And that is just my 2 cents worth.

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=

[FLS]

Originally posted by J_A_B
"It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft"


"SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph "


I guess you 2 agree on something, at least  



J_A_B

I don't agree that the Spit IX will pull 4 G's under 180mph.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

[Vermillion]

BigCrate,   I have no problem what so ever with people asking questions, or trying to learn more.  And there's nothing wrong with questioning the accuracy of the flight modeling in AH either (if you have real proof or data) . But its all in how you approach it.

The problem I have is when someone walks into a new community and immediately starts "This game is PORKED!! Its TOTALLY wrong !!!!" and then proceeds to show that they know very little to nothing about the subject of which they're talking about.

For instance on the subject of compression. Instead of making a statement that the compression in AH is wrong, why not ask the question "why am I compressing at low altitude? I thought that it was a problem only at high altitude".  Then someone who knows alot about the subject (and I don't claim to know alot, just enough) could have told you that its a function of the density of air and the speed of sound, so that it more of a problem at high altitude (it occurs at a lower IAS due to the less dense air), but that if you get the aircraft going fast enough its going to be a problem at any altitude.

If you think the P-38L is too slow at altitude, find some data to back up that claim.  To be honest its quite easy to prove or disprove, since there's a TON of data out there on the P-38.  And then you need to perform flight tests in AH, document your procedure and results, and then compare the two.  If your right, or the data is somewhat inconclusive, post your results here and talk about it.  To be honest, unless something drastic has changed in the P-38 in the last version or two, the P-38 should be right on the money in regards to speed vs altitude.  I suggest investing in a copy of  "America's Hundred Thousand" which has alot of great data.

You can learn alot about aircraft on these boards, but you have to learn how to approach the community.

[OLtos]

I'll address one thing.  OH man we griped in AW too.  'bout constantly.  We griped about alt monkies. We griped about not enuogh eye candy.  We griped about TOO MUCH eye candy.  You name we griped about.  Hell we even griped about the WEATHER, or lack thereof.  Regarding AH, my biggest gape (not a gripe really, just leaves me gaping), at AH is how the scoring tells you that 3/4 of this game has not got much to do with playing the other players.  That so much of a "combat flight game" is dedicated to supporting some turf war just seems odd.  But, oh WELL,  Im here and I will play the whole game if I can.  But it still makes a body feel weird.

But there are some really great responses to all of these things about the P-38.  Wow what a lot of really well thought out stuff!    Just to continue a bit.   Torque vs. Slipstream (sometimes called P-Factor according to one of my instructors).  In these WWII fighters you had both effects.   Robert Johnson went to far as to say you had to really watch the JUG because if you rolled in the same direction as the prop rotation it would "autorotate".  Thats torque.   The P-38's counter rotating engines negated that completely and also negated slip stream effects.  And, consideting the nature of propellors, i.e. gyroscopes spinning very fast, I would think that not only would torque be gone but that you would have a net GAIN in stablility.  This is borne out in Dean's comments about roll rate in a p-38.  From his data, (the pax river fighter conference material from WWII)  The p-38 as actually TOO stable for most pilots.  One of them he quoted as saying it was odd or something.   The problem was with all that inertia and stablility outboard of the center line of roll.   It COULD roll quickly, once it got rolling.  But the P-38, again according to Dean's stuff, would actually hesitate and balk at changing attitude in the roll axis.  I imagine if you turn the dampening up around 60% on roll for the AH p38 you could see pretty much what he describes. But once in a tight turn the P-38 had the advantage of NOT rolling when it stalled.  It just mushed outward in the turn.  They guy behind him would fall victim to his engine and propellor torque and depart controlled flight.  

In Caiden's book several pilots reported that they studied the german planes to see which way their engines turned so that they could make their evasives in such a way as to force the German to roll in the direction of prop rotation.

Now this is all just from the history books.  Caiden uses a lot of primary source stuff, in that he interviewed numbers of veterans of the plane.  Dean on the other hand is almost a single source work, (not really a great idea in historical writing), but his MAIN thing was to publish the results gained at the Fighter Conferences not necessarily produce THE definitive document nailing down AC performance.  Still Dean was an aeronautical engineer and his discussions of aerodynamic forces is detailed in the extreme,  cept he did manage to leave out the math. (Thank god, heed a lozt me there).

So, If I have a big beef it's with the treatment of the 38.  It never seems to have programmed into it the virtues it's pilots said it had, and it always seems to have all of it's vices.  In AH it even has vices that ALL of the documentation I can find contradict.

For me it isn't so much a beef against Aces High, as a frustration in that I want to fly a P-38 as it  has been described by it's pilots.  Not some fiction brought about by the coding of a computer simulation of flight that is missing things.

As for not complaining about AW, ohmygod, you think we're bad NOW! LOL we griped CONSTANTLY in AW.  I think it was a desire to get shed of us that finally caused them to sell to EA.

All in all a great discussin guys.  Glad I came back to read it.