Author Topic: At this rate, just adding the P-38J should qualify as AH2 (Read 1218 times)

OIO · « **on:** April 18, 2003, 02:34:15 PM »

Not a single new P-38 since AH1 release

*sniff*

Cmon HT, give us da luv!

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2003, 02:42:20 PM »

The P-38 was not in the AH release. It was added in AH v1.01 or AH v1.02. I don't recall which.

Also the J should not be the next version added. It is too similar to the L.

The next version should be the P-38F or P-38G.

MrCoffee · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2003, 05:06:39 PM »

I hope they add the early P-38 models soon. Would leverage well against the Ki-61.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2003, 02:17:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrCoffee
I hope they add the early P-38 models soon. Would leverage well against the Ki-61.

What's wrong with the Ki-61 in relation to the P-38L in here?

Ack-Ack

Central · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2003, 02:28:00 AM »

Why not the K .... we do -- have the C-hog, eh?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2003, 12:17:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Central
Why not the K .... we do -- have the C-hog, eh?

Because the addition of the P-38K would bring about great moaning, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. The performance details are a little sketchy, but if it did perform as well as it should, it would carry a "perk" load greater than any other piston engine/prop driven plane in AH. Hell, if the P-38L actually was as fast as it should be (ie if it had the performance it should have if it were actually making true WEP power when in WEP), it would probably be perked too.

MrWimpy · « **Reply #6 on:** April 29, 2003, 09:23:11 AM »

What's the P38K? Never heard of that version.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #7 on:** April 29, 2003, 09:51:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrWimpy
What's the P38K? Never heard of that version.

It's the best model of the Lockheed P-38 ever/never made. They built ONE.

WideWing has his own website, this is the article found on that site about the P-38K:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

The fact that the P-38K never went into production is criminal. Read the other P-38 articles on that site and SEE how the War Production Board and the USAAF screwed the pooch on the P-38. Learn why the P-38 was never given a fair shake in Europe. Then read Bodie's books and find out what a clusterfutz the 8th AF really was.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** April 29, 2003, 07:18:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hell, if the P-38L actually was as fast as it should be (ie if it had the performance it should have if it were actually making true WEP power when in WEP), it would probably be perked too.

I have seen this claim many times but have never seen any of the claimants actually produce any data to back it up.

I call BS and P-38 fanboism.

MrWimpy · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2003, 08:00:26 PM »

Everyone is allowed their speculations. The truth is, without it actually going into production and service, we'll never know how good or bad it would have been in service.

All any of us can do is speculate.

My opinion, I'd rather see airplanes that actually made it into service and saw combat than the "what-if" types.

But that's just my opinion.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #10 on:** April 29, 2003, 10:56:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I have seen this claim many times but have never seen any of the claimants actually produce any data to back it up.

I call BS and P-38 fanboism.

I call arrogance and ignorance. Post proof from the Lockheed and USAAF data that it ISN'T true.

Read Bodie sometime. He's had more and better access to both Lockheed AND USAF archives and data than anyone. Must be the fact that he's a former Lockheed engineer. It's common knowledge that the engines in the P-38L-5-Lo had more power than the engines in the P-38J had. I'm not going to spend anymore time arguing this with people who refuse to read and do their own research. I'm not going to go look it up for you it's been posted at least a dozen times here and elsewhere. Oh, and by the way, if you do your research well, you'll find where the USAAF even raised the manifold pressure limits when better fuel was available.

Have a nice day.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2003, 11:09:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrWimpy
Everyone is allowed their speculations. The truth is, without it actually going into production and service, we'll never know how good or bad it would have been in service.

All any of us can do is speculate.

My opinion, I'd rather see airplanes that actually made it into service and saw combat than the "what-if" types.

But that's just my opinion.

The performance data on the P-38K is not speculation. There is test data available, but it is hard to find. It's also possible to correlate and calculate the rest to a reasonable level of accuracy from actual facts, data and testing. The increased power of the engines is verified, as is the increased efficiency of the props.

Regarding how it would perform in service, there is little doubt that a substantial increase in climb rate, acceleration, top speed, combat radius, and service ceiling would do anything other than improve combat performance. Rarely if ever has improved aircraft performance resulted in poorer combat performance.

I have never said that adding the P-38K should even be considered. It shouldn't, unless there is some sort of arena or theater created that deals with planes that would have or should have been built. Putting planes like the P-38K in with standard production planes just isn't a good idea.

BBBB · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2003, 02:48:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm not going to spend anymore time arguing this with people who refuse to read and do their own research.

wrag · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:30:35 AM »

Will anyone comment on the P38L roll rate?

I thought it had powered rons? Sure rolls slow for that. Is the P38 under modeled for game play issues? or????

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:06:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
Will anyone comment on the P38L roll rate?

I thought it had powered rons? Sure rolls slow for that. Is the P38 under modeled for game play issues? or????

I'm not at all certain about the roll rate of the P-38L in AH. I have not done any testing. I'm sure several others have.

However, you must remember that the hydraulic assist for the ailerons only made it easier to turn the yoke against the resistance caused by airflow at high speeds. The biggest advantage of the hydraulic assist was that it allowed a fast snap or flick roll at HIGH SPEED. The P-38 only had a fast roll rate at speeds above 250MPH, and only held an advantage in roll rate above 300 MPH. And then only the models that had hydraulic assist on the ailerons. It would still only approach, and I do mean approach, parity with fast rollers like the FW190 and the P-47.

On the other hand, the P-38 could roll equally well in either direction, and flew with neutral trim regardless of power settings.
A single engine fighter had to use trim to maintain normal flight with constant stick input, and trim had to be changed with power setting changes. They do not roll equally well in both directions due to the torque. Rolling with torque they rolled quickly, rolling against torque they rolled slowly and risked stalling. A favorite tactice of P-38 pilots was a climbing right turn. When they forced the enemy fighter to a low enough speed in the climb, if the enemy continued pursuit, he'd stall and snap roll inverted and possibly out of control. He then became easy prey.

When evading the enemy in a dive, P-38 pilots were instructed to immediately climb out to the right after the dive, because it was harder for the enemy to follow at high speed and high power settings.

The problem is that the P-38 has a 52 foot wingspan, and broad chord ailerons. They really aren't as effective as they could be if they were redesigned. Add to that the inertia brought about by the weight and width of the P-38 and you have a slow roll rate at low speed, and a high yoke effort at high speed without hydraulic assist.