Cit, lots of p38 info

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Citabria:
nath the f4u was called whistling death because of the sound its intakes made.

Thank you very much Cit. I read that the P-38 was Whispering Death a very long time ago (like in the 70's   ) so I don't remember the source any more. Can anyone confirm this?

[Citabria]

I thought beaufighter was wispering death too actually. I dont know if the grunts had a nickname for it.

[Westy]

F4U = WHISTLING Death

Beau = Whispering Death

Westy

[Citabria]

more fuel to the lightning fire.

>Interesting, if true.  However, most sources give the Spitfire XIV a
>better performance than this account would give credit for - e.g. the
>rate of climb for the P-38L and Spit XIV were similar.  In fact the
>earlier, single-stage supercharge Griffon II-powered Spitfire XII had
>comparable (in fact slightly better) performance figures at low and
>mid-altitudes than the P-38L (372mph @ 5,700ft and 397mph @ 18,000ft).

The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):

Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.

>
>
>It might be worth restarting the relevant performance figures of the
>Spitfire XIV with the improved Griffon 65 at this point - climb to
>20,000ft in just over 5 mins, 40,000ft in 15 minutes and a maximum
>speed of 447mph @ 25,600ft (approx 370mph @ 2,000ft) and a service
>ceiling of 44,500ft.

The P-38L, continued

Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.

Add to this the ability to carry up to 4,000 lbs of underwing ordnance
and an absolute maximum range of just over 3,000 miles, and one can
see that the P-38 is a superb fighter. By the way, the bomb max bomb
load and max range are, naturally, mutually exclusionary.

[Citabria]

more:

It should be obvious that Lockheed would do exhaustive testing on their
own aircraft. Lockheed's internal test reports were not released publically.
Nor were Allison's.

>
>Without knowing how this plane was loaded or configured (ammo, bombracks,
>fuel load), or how its engines were tuned and prepped for the test, I
>would stick with the figures which at least claim to be measured 'under
>typical combat loads'.

The testing in question is always performed at combat weight with ballast
added for ammmunition. In other words, full load, clean configuration.

>
>I'm sure Lockheed could get a P-38L to hit 443 mph, but I wonder how fast North
>American could get a P-51D to go?  

443 in WEP.... That means you have about 5 minutes of maximum horsepower.
The above speed is not sustainable. Nor, for that matter is METO sustainable.
Why? Overheating. Even for the Mustang, METO was not sustainable for long
periods.

>
>Also, the published WEP hp for the -30 is 1600, where does 1725 come from?
>The difference represents 9% of a power setting which is already supposed to
>be extremely high.

There's that word again: "Published". Published by who?

Allison spent a great deal of time and money on the "dash thirty" program.
They produced volumes of dynometer data for Lockheed and the AAF.
Lockheed did their own testing and confirmed the Allison numbers. Hence,
the installation of the -30 in the L model.

The following are the CORRECT stats for the Allison V-1710F-30.
Write 'em down somewhere....

Ratings [minutes]          Power    RPM  Manifold [in.Hg]  Altitude [ft]
Normal (no limit)          1,100    2,600        44                 30,000
Take Off (5)               1,475    3,000        54                    SL
Military (15)              1,475    3,000        54                 30,000
WEP (5)                    1,725    3,000        60                 28,700

[Citabria]

MORE!

>> >The Merlin powered P-51 was faster than the P-38L at all altitudes.
>>
>> This is incorrect. The L was capable of 442 mph in WEP at 22,500 ft.
>> Futhermore, the L was still producing 1,320 hp per engine at 30,000 ft.
>> The Merlin was down to 1,090 hp at this height. The turbos were more
>> efficient than the Merlin's blower.
>
>All figures I've seen about top speed of P-38J/L are in the range of
>660-680km/h, that is 410-422mph. In what configuration L was
>supposed to break 710km/h (about same than P-51D)? Painted, guns
>loaded, all equipment onboard? How much fuel? Italian and French
>manufacturers, for example, almost always presented performance
>figures which were 5-10% better than in real life, because they used
>'Reno configuration'.

The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state
414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30
Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and
I'll go into that a little later.

The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.

The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
source than Green and Swanborough et al.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan


[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-13-2001).]

[Citabria]

more

One other point, the P-38 did not have an 80 mph speed advantage over the
Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-84, Ki-100, N1K1, N1K2, or the J2M. Especially below 20,000 ft.
were most PTO/SWPA/CBI combat took place. Furthermore, all the above listed
could dive with a P-38.

     Typical speeds              Avg. climb rate to alt. at left
Ki-44    378 mph @ 17,500 ft. / Climb: 3,700 fpm.
Ki-61    362 mph @ 16,400 ft. / Climb: 2,380 fpm.
Ki-84    392 mph @ 21,325 ft. / Climb: 3,790 fpm.
Ki-100  366 mph @ 19,700 ft. / Climb: 2,750 fpm
N1K1   363 mph @ 17,700 ft. / Climb: 2,510 fpm.
N1K2   371 mph @ 18,400 ft. / Climb: 2,675 fpm.
J2M3   365 mph @ 17,900 ft. / Climb: 3,570 fpm.

P-38G  345 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 402 mph @ 25,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 2,885 fpm.avg.
P-38H  352 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 409 mph @ 22,000 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,070 fpm.avg.
P-38J   360 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 421 mph @ 22,500 ft.(METO) / Climb: 3,585 fpm.avg.
P-38L   365 mph @ 5,000 ft. / 442 mph @ 22,500 ft. (WEP) / Climb: 3,750 fpm.avg.

The point of this chart is to illustrate that the speed advantage of the P-38
over many of the Japanese fighters was far less than 80 mph. Note that several
of the Japanese fighters held an advantage in climb rate up until the Late J
model and the the big L. Every one of the Japanese fighters could match the
P-38 in a dive. The Ki-44, much like the Fw-190 could dive away from the
Lightning above 20,000 ft.

Your 80 mph claim is based upon the Ki-43 and early A6M. These two aircraft do
not accurately reflect the entirety of Japan's fighter forces. If anyone should
desire specific Japanese production numbers, I can post that data as well.

[Citabria]

more!!!!!!  

>>As to the Japanese.... The Ki-84 was at least as good as the Fw-190A and
>>a good match for the Dora as well. The Hayate was as fast, climbed better
>>and could turn rings around any Focke Wulf. It was certainly better than the
>>P-38F. A good pilot in a Ki-84 could give a P-38L all it wanted. Had the
>>Japanese been able to supply higher octane fuel, the Hayate would have
>>been even faster. On 100-130 avgas a Ki-84 reached 426 mph when
>>tested by the USAAF.
>
>But it did 388 on the fuel they had. And was not effectively piloted. In fact
>the game was all one way before the Ki-84 arrived. Shiden too. I do appreciate
>their qualities.

Some sources quote speeds of 392, 406 and 385 mph respectively. The really
impressive fact is that the Ki-84 was capable of reaching 380+ at 5,000 feet.
That's cookin'. Faster than the P-51D down on the deck. Once down on the deck,
the Mustang could not out-turn, out-run nor out-climb the Hayate. It was
American style teamwork that overcame the Ki-84 down low, not any performance
edge. Much the same for the Shiden, which wile a bit slower than the Ki-84, was
more robust airframe capable of more abuse.

[bolillo_loco]

my god citabria your worse than me with this P-38 junk, where did you get those performance figures for the P-38L? I only ever saw mention of late L versions that did 425 military and 440 wep (TAS)?? clue me in I want them also. oye citabria, digame que es citabria??? bolillo es pan blanco en mexico

[Jigster]

A note, the nickname "Forked Tail Devil" came from Ju52 pilots. In the Medd. , even with escorts numbering above 30, it was very common for a group of 10-15 P-38's to break through and torch the 52's and then speed away from the escort.

There is an awsome article in Aviation History of 15 P-38's of the 49th FS (82nd FG) engaging the RHAF 101st FG (arguably the best Hungarian group) AND elements of  JG27 (II and III Gruppen) JG.300, JG.302, and two groups from Zerstorergeschwader 76 (410's)

Basiclly a group of P-51B's and several P-38 squadrons were flying escort for B-17's and B-24's over Hungary, when the 49th FS (15 P-38's) engaged 32 Me-109G-6's of the 101st and over 80 Me109's and FW 190's of the JG27  on June 14, 1944. (The JG27 later moved on to the bomber stream and tangled with the 4 other P-38 groups and 1 P-51 group)

5 P-38's were lost, but all pilots survived, and over 15 confirmed kills for the 49th, all G6's from the RHAF's 101st.

It shold be up on the Aviation History page soon: http://www.thehistorynet.com/AviationHistory/
but I can scan it if wanted.

[Tac]

Preach on Brother Citabria! Hopefully the P38 will get some revamp soon. (i hope it does, I wish it does, I pray it does...)

Bolillo: Si la memoria me sirve,"Citabria" es el nombre de un avion aerobatico.

Lockheed sent me a video on the P-38 with some cockpit footage. Theres a part when the 38 is in a turn with its fowlers extended.. man that wing grows almost 30% bigger with them fowlers!

Combat footage is amazing, those 190's never had a chance.

Keep em coming Citabria & Whels!

[bolillo_loco]

claro que si.....citabria.....duh I feel even more stupid than normal. I want to see valid charts from a valid source on these 440 mph P-38Ls with the -30 allison. I have read about them, but havent yet gotten a chart on them. I think I may have a source able to direct me on this, but I may be slow in getting them if they do exist.

bolillo es un pinche cabachito, gringito, guerito mas famoso en todo de mexico jajaja que es siempre borracho

[Citabria]

bollilo post your info

HTC is always willing to listen to credible evidence and will adjust flight models if there is enough evidence that doing so will increase the accuracy of the planes in the game.

they tend to ignore drivling idiots like me who rant and rave about pilot accounts and unquantifiable circumstantial evidence from uncredible sources.

[BUG_EAF322]

I remember someone in the  arena saying to me:  "i wish u flew a real fighter"

I certainly do

Seems it can be modelled a litle better

I think the 38 should be in the top3 off WOII
fighters, and placed number one for it's original look  

[Sable]

Here is why the 440+mph doesn't add up to me.  Drag increases geometrically with speed(a good example is cars, where a 100hp car can easily go 100mph, a 250hp car can rarely top 150mph or so, and it generally takes 500hp+ in a car to break 200mph).

Now the P-38J and L should be externally identical right?  Same drag is what I'm getting at.  If the 38J will do 421mph with 2X1600hp, and the 38L will do 414mph with 2X1425hp then we can say that a total increase of 350hp on this airframe, at that speed range and altitude will result in an increase of 7 mph.  Now the additional increase of going to WEP in the 38L would be 2x1725 - 2x1600 or 250hp.  So what this is saying is that to go from 414mph to 421mph(7mph increase) requires 350hp, and then to go from 421mph to 443mph(22mph increase) requires only another 250hp?  That doesn't add up to me.

If you have a chart showing this performance I'd love to see it though, as basic formulas often miss some underlying subtlety of the situation.

Sable
352ndFG

 

Originally posted by Citabria:
MORE!

The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.

The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
source than Green and Swanborough et al.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan


[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 01-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Sable (edited 01-16-2001).]