Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BUG_EAF322 on May 01, 2004, 04:27:49 PM
-
And compared to the fm in AH
I think it's a bit porked in turning and stalls spins easily
it's diveflaps are a bit overmodelled i think it puts up the nose at all speeds a bit to hard maybe.
Anyway al lw planes easily can turn with u.
the ability to trim out of a dive also lacks.
for the rest it stays a magneting plane to fly.
somehow i like the ah model better maybe because it's easier maybe because i flew it to long.
Any opinions ?
-
Dive flaps definately seem overmodelled.
As for the turn issues, was the P-38 supposed to out turn LW planes?
I know it should be able to out-turn Fw190s, but I'm not sure if there's any fact suggesting it should out turn 109s(at least in the sense they do in AH) in the first place. It's a huge plane, even bigger than the P-47, presumably with a higher wing loading than any 109. IIRC the powerloading is less than the 109 too, isn't it? I was always under the impression that the AH P-38 turns a bit too good.
If it's any solace, I seem to recall hearing that the stall characteristics and dynamics for the P-38 in FB/AEP isn't very accurate - only just barely adequate - since the game initially didn't have any accomodations to deal with twin-engined fighters(especially one with counter rotating props). I think it can be viewed as an attempt to recreate the P-38 within the FB format, which just has a lot of limitations due to how the game was designed in the first place.
...
Anyhow, setting that aside, another factor that may contribute to turning 'issues' in FB/AEP is that generally,(IMO anyways) the effectiveness of "instantaneous turns" or "temporary harder stick pulls" are a lot less than what it is in AH. Many people don't seem to realize that, but it's not too surprising as it is a pretty subtle thing. I've met a lot of people saying that the certain planes they used to easily out-turn in another certain planes in AH, is somehow not so easy in FB/AEP.
For example, whereas a Spitfire MkV will always easily out turn any Bf109F-4 in AH, that's not so in FB/AEP - and by this, I don't mean the case where the Bf109F-4 has a huge E advantage over the Spit, and the Spit is already very slow.
It's kinda difficult to explain, but if it were in AH, when a Spit finds a Bf109F-4 behind its tail he begins to turn. When he sees the Bf109F-4 not shaken off, the pilot will simply kick some more rudder and pull harder into a much more steeper turn that bleeds E quickly and "rides" the Spit at the edge of the envelope - which, the F-4 can never follow.
Generally, in AH, the better turning planes are much more stable in that situation and can easily enter, and maintain that state. The worse the plane turns, the harder it is to maintain that "edge".
Another way to see this happening is when pulling something into a vertical rope-a-dope: like, for instance the F-4 dragging a SpitV into a vertical - if the F-4 doesn't have a huge E advantage, even if the F-4 succeeds in "roping" the SpitV, he still may fail in the "reversal of status" because while the Spit stalled out first, and then the F-4 stalled out over its head, the F-4 still needs some alt and speed to recover and start maneuvering, whereas the Spitfire can still easily maneuver at an extreme lower speed after the reversal attempt.
Now, the difference in FB/AEP is, all planes are about equally less tolerant to "the edge of the envelope". If a SpitV finds a Bf109F-4 behind it, the pilot can't just pull the stick harder and instantly gain a higher AoA which the F-4 cannot follow. What the Spit has to do is maintain its corner speed and let the natural difference in turn rate push him to the advantageous position within 2~3 circles. In that sense, in FB/AEP, planes with historically better turn rates do out turn planes with worse turn rates, but just not as quickly, decisively, and also easily, as it does in AH.
Hence, any turn contest in FB/AEP needs to be dragged into the situation which we refer to as "sustained turn" contest - "instantaneous", or momentary "harder stick pulling" turn, is dangerous for all planes and not very effective.
I'm not sure which of the two games is more realistic, but that's just how it is in FB/AEP.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I know it should be able to out-turn Fw190s, but I'm not sure if there's any fact suggesting it should out turn 109s(at least in the sense they do in AH) in the first place.
Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts over Sicily:
"Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening."
-
From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:
"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."
-
Do you know which P-38F submodel that was? I'm curious whether the combat flaps setting was used - only the final production variant of P-38Fs had them.
-
I love the 38... There aren't many planes in the game that can hang with it in the things it does so well...
Not going to get into them but the 38 pilots out there know what I am talking about
-
Originally posted by cat5
Do you know which P-38F submodel that was? I'm curious whether the combat flaps setting was used - only the final production variant of P-38Fs had them.
Sorry, I don't know submodel. The source (Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft) does not mention using flaps.
-
"Although at HIGH SPEED the Fw190 is superior in turning circles"
Can p-38 use combat flaps in high speeds?
Maybe that is why FW was better -except in low speed turning.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's a huge plane, even bigger than the P-47, presumably with a higher wing loading than any 109.
Actually, because it is such a large wing (52" wide), I would not be surprised (but do not know) if the p-38 has a much lower wing loading.
-
Wing area of the 38 was 327.5sqft while for the 47 it was 300sqft.
Weight varied from 12,700lb(empty) to 21,600lb max for the 38.
Weight varied from 10,000lb(empty) to 17,500lb max for the 47.
That gives 39-66 lb/sqft for the 38 and 33-58lb/sqft for the 47.
Open for corrections.;)
-
The 109 was more what I was speaking of...but again dont know.
-
Hi Timras,
>From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:
>"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."
This observation probably is not so much a question of the use of Fowler or combat flaps, but due to the inherent limitations of the P-38F.
The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was aware of the P-38's problems, consisting of severe buffeting and loss of elevator authority, and flight-tested the Lightning II "to assess the degree to which these troubles impair the operational fitness of the airplane."
Their report explains on the accelerated stall of the Lightning II:
"It is very fierce, sudden, and results in loss of elevator control. The differences between buffetting and the high speed stall are that the speeds at which buffetting occurs are very much higher than those at which a high speed stall would be expected, and further, the greater the speed, the worse is the effect. When this buffetting occurs the whole aircraft shakes and the evelvator control becomes ineffective, making it impossible to apply greater accelerations. When the buffetting is severe the amount of shuddering of the aircraft is sufficient to make accurate air firing impossible."
The conclusion:
"If it be taken that for a fighter aircraft to be satisfactory, at least 4G should be obtainable without difficulty, it would seem that with the Lightning II such an acceleration can only be obtained without trouble at the air speeds which are to be encountered in operations if the height is less than 15,000 ft. Whilst, no doubt, the aircraft can be operated between 20,000 and 30,000 ft in form of attack involving almost straight flying only, it is felt that under these conditions the limiting speeds which the aircraft may be allowed to obtain without risk of buffetting at 1 G would provide a serious drawback."
What does this all mean?
Normally, the faster you go, the more Gs you can pull. In the Lightning II, no increase of the Gs is possible above a certain speed, and in fact G rate drops again if you approach the limiting dive speeds.
This means that above a certain speed, the Fw 190A which is free from these problems can pull more Gs than the Lightning II and thus turn at a smaller radius, at a greater rate.
By staying at a low speed, the Lightning II can avoid the regime in which it's outturned by the Fw 190A. The suggested 140 mph IAS give about a 2 G turn at 10000 ft, so I'd assume it requires a spiral climb unless the Lightning pilot chooses to throttle back.
The reference to 1 G buffeting in the BAC report could be roughly translated into gamer language as follows: "Even if it's accepted that the Lightning II can't turn above 20000 ft, it isn't make a good boom-and-zoom fighter because it compresses so quickly in dives."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Timras,
>From tactical trials, P-38F against captured Fw190A-3:
>"Although at high speed the Fw190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140mph, at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw190 cannot follow."
This observation probably is not so much a question of the use of Fowler or combat flaps, but due to the inherent limitations of the P-38F.
The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was aware of the P-38's problems, consisting of severe buffeting and loss of elevator authority, and flight-tested the Lightning II "to assess the degree to which these troubles impair the operational fitness of the airplane."
Their report explains on the accelerated stall of the Lightning II:
"It is very fierce, sudden, and results in loss of elevator control. The differences between buffetting and the high speed stall are that the speeds at which buffetting occurs are very much higher than those at which a high speed stall would be expected, and further, the greater the speed, the worse is the effect. When this buffetting occurs the whole aircraft shakes and the evelvator control becomes ineffective, making it impossible to apply greater accelerations. When the buffetting is severe the amount of shuddering of the aircraft is sufficient to make accurate air firing impossible."
The conclusion:
"If it be taken that for a fighter aircraft to be satisfactory, at least 4G should be obtainable without difficulty, it would seem that with the Lightning II such an acceleration can only be obtained without trouble at the air speeds which are to be encountered in operations if the height is less than 15,000 ft. Whilst, no doubt, the aircraft can be operated between 20,000 and 30,000 ft in form of attack involving almost straight flying only, it is felt that under these conditions the limiting speeds which the aircraft may be allowed to obtain without risk of buffetting at 1 G would provide a serious drawback."
What does this all mean?
Normally, the faster you go, the more Gs you can pull. In the Lightning II, no increase of the Gs is possible above a certain speed, and in fact G rate drops again if you approach the limiting dive speeds.
This means that above a certain speed, the Fw 190A which is free from these problems can pull more Gs than the Lightning II and thus turn at a smaller radius, at a greater rate.
By staying at a low speed, the Lightning II can avoid the regime in which it's outturned by the Fw 190A. The suggested 140 mph IAS give about a 2 G turn at 10000 ft, so I'd assume it requires a spiral climb unless the Lightning pilot chooses to throttle back.
The reference to 1 G buffeting in the BAC report could be roughly translated into gamer language as follows: "Even if it's accepted that the Lightning II can't turn above 20000 ft, it isn't make a good boom-and-zoom fighter because it compresses so quickly in dives."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hey there Henning.
The British Aircraft Purchasing Commission was responsible for the infamous Lightning I (Lockheed P-322) with it's P-40 compatible Allisons (not counter-rotating) and no turbos. They rejected these for a lack of high altitude performance and "vicious torque". Clearly, they ordered turkey and then wondered why it didn't taste like steak.
IIRC, the Lightning II was the P-38F-13-LO, and only 29 were procured. Initially, Lockheed refused to sell them to the Brits due to the run-around they had with them earlier. I don't blame them. Moreover, I seem to recall that the BAPC didn't want the P-38s anyway, but were ordered to acquire them.
I have read test pilot flight reports on the P-38 from various testing organizations, and no one encountered the scope of reported problems listed by the Brits. In other words, what terrified the Brits barely fazed the Americans who had far greater experience flying the Lightning. That's to expected.
I recall that when North American test pilots had an opportunity to test a Spitfire Mk.V, they came away impressed by its wonderful manners and handling. But, to a man they agreed that they "would not want to take anything built that lightly into combat". Of course, they were wrong. It's all about perceptions and prejudices. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and so on.
That the P-38 wasn't an especially good fighter at high altitude goes without saying. But, get it down to 20,000 feet and below and it was the equal of anything it might encounter. Naturally, that assumes that the pilot has mastered a very complex and demanding airplane. One big advantage of the P-51 was its relative simplicity to fly. Managing two sets of powerplant controls makes for more work. Unless the pilot has enough time in the P-38 that it becomes second nature, that extra work leads to being busier in the cockpit, and that is never a good thing. That and the fact that the P-51 had a much better engine management system only amplified the P-38's complexity. The P-38L had simplified engine controls, but by then the plane was already being phased out by the 8th AF (along with the P-47) in favor of the Mustang.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wing area of the 38 was 327.5sqft while for the 47 it was 300sqft.
Weight varied from 12,700lb(empty) to 21,600lb max for the 38.
Weight varied from 10,000lb(empty) to 17,500lb max for the 47.
That gives 39-66 lb/sqft for the 38 and 33-58lb/sqft for the 47.
Open for corrections.
What about with the extra wing area created by partially or fully extended flaps?
The P38 is certainly not a great turner in AH without the aid of flaps. Only with at least several notches of flaps can the 38 easily turn inside Luftwaffe and other American ETO aircraft.
-
U guys forget its 2 props giving good airflow over the wing.
-
It's also two engines and two fuselages adding extra weight for the wings to support.
-
well that weight was already counted wasn't it ?
well i definitly don't sound like an expert.
WIDEWING!!!!!! HELP!!!!
-
Hi Widewing,
>I have read test pilot flight reports on the P-38 from various testing organizations, and no one encountered the scope of reported problems listed by the Brits. In other words, what terrified the Brits barely fazed the Americans who had far greater experience flying the Lightning. That's to expected.
Well, the British only reproduced Lockheed test results. From the report:
"Before the tests were commenced, Messrs. Lockheed produced the three curves showing the incidence of severe buffetting at 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 feet respectively, as established by Lockheeds test staff."
So the observed ill behavior was normal for the type and known (and acknowledged) by Lockheed.
In fact, the problem described by the BAC applied not only to the Lightning II, but also to later models, as the three curves produced by Lockheed are repeated in somewhat simplified form as the dive placard for the P-38J and L:
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/p38dive.pdf
So the BAC results were quite representative for the entire P-38 series and confirmed by Lockheeds own findings and statements about operational limits.
By the way, I would consider the result of the tactical trials against the Fw 190A-3 another confirmation of the P-38's problems with accelerated stalls.
And here's a comparison of the Mach-induced drop of the P-38F's and the P-51B's maximum lift coefficient (according to NACA research):
Mach - IAS - P-38F - P-51B
0.3 - 138 mph - 100% - 100%
0.4 - 184 mph - 88% - 93%
0.5 - 230 mph - 74% - 92%
0.6 - 276 mph - 58% - 94%
Again, this shows a serious drop of achievable G rate below what you'd expect from Bernoulli's equation.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
german planes sukked compared to p38
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
>I have read test pilot flight reports on the P-38 from various testing organizations, and no one encountered the scope of reported problems listed by the Brits. In other words, what terrified the Brits barely fazed the Americans who had far greater experience flying the Lightning. That's to be expected.
Well, the British only reproduced Lockheed test results. From the report:
"Before the tests were commenced, Messrs. Lockheed produced the three curves showing the incidence of severe buffetting at 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 feet respectively, as established by Lockheeds test staff."
So the observed ill behavior was normal for the type and known (and acknowledged) by Lockheed.
Hiya Henning,
I'm sorry, I was too vague in my statement. I too have the P-38 flight manual and am familiar with the G restrictions outlined on page 30.
What I was referring to was the general attitude of the British testers. Lockheed received complaints about everything imaginable. They didn't like the cockpit layout (but it's a model of organization compared to the Mosquito's cockpit). They didn't like the fuel selectors or their location (out of direct sight). They hated the canopy, they disliked just about everything to one degree or another. I have seen complaints about the buffeting that indicated that the Brit test pilots were horrified with it. Believe me, many USAAF pilots were also horrified by it as well. But, as they became familiar with it, they realized that it wasn't dangerous in itself as long as they did not allow their speed to get too far to the wrong side of the placcard.
My discussions about the P-38 with Ilfrey, Heiden and Ceuleers established to my satisfaction that an experienced pilot can live with the high-speed shake-n-bake. However, each agreed that attempting a steep dive from high altitude was simply stupid. All of the above also flew the P-51D in combat. All thought the P-51D was markedly superior to the P-38 above 20,000 feet. However, to a man, each would take the P-38 if the fight was below 10,000 feet. Much better acceleration and climb. Deft, torque-free handling. Superior low speed agility and mild-mannered departure. All of these things inspire confidence, and confidence is a substantial thing when it comes to combat in fighters.
When Doolittle turned the escorts loose to hunt down the Luftwaffe, the P-38 finally found its niche. Down at low to medium altitudes, P-38s were extremely deadly. Up high, tied to the bombers they were sitting ducks.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's also two engines and two fuselages adding extra weight for the wings to support.
Nonetheless, the P-38 had the best power loading of any American fighter.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by cat5
Do you know which P-38F submodel that was? I'm curious whether the combat flaps setting was used - only the final production variant of P-38Fs had them.
To the best of my recollection, the P-38F didn't have any dive breaks. Hell, it didn't have any combat flaps (Fowler flaps), those didn't come until I think the H model.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
What about with the extra wing area created by partially or fully extended flaps?
The P38 is certainly not a great turner in AH without the aid of flaps. Only with at least several notches of flaps can the 38 easily turn inside Luftwaffe and other American ETO aircraft.
In AH, it should only take a notch or two of flaps to out turn any US or LuftWhiner plane.
ack-ack
-
Hi Widewing,
>What I was referring to was the general attitude of the British testers. Lockheed received complaints about everything imaginable.
Hehe, I got a good laugh from one of their comments:
"Entry into the cockpit on the ground is difficult but easier than emergency exit in flight."
>They didn't like the cockpit layout (but it's a model of organization compared to the Mosquito's cockpit).
You're right, and I actually got a similar good laugh from Corky Meyer's discussion of the confused British cockpits :-) Eric Brown's comment on the heavy RAF gloves ("guaranteed to turn your fingers into a bunch of bananas") was a good one, too!
Still, I don't think there's any doubt that the BAC tests were accurate on a factual level. For example, they mentioned the same overheating problems that later were encountered in the Pacfic, too. (Clay Tice told me that when they were trying to intercept Dinahs, they had to climb in several steps separated by level runs to let the engine cool down again. They never caught a Dinah, I think.)
Two good bits from the BAC report:
- It took about ten seconds to get manifold pressure up from 30" Hg to maximum due to turbo lag. Full performance take-off procedure was to hold the brakes until maximum power was reached and only then release the brakes.
- The P-38F had no automatic boost control so the pilot had to juggle the engine controls constantly. Any asymmetric power setting would result in yawing and in a one-wing-down trim situation.
>My discussions about the P-38 with Ilfrey, Heiden and Ceuleers established to my satisfaction that an experienced pilot can live with the high-speed shake-n-bake. However, each agreed that attempting a steep dive from high altitude was simply stupid.
Well, it comes down to tactics again. As buffeting is followed by loss of elevator authority, even an experienced pilot couldn't do the same high-speed turn as a P-51 or a Fw 190, but knowing that, he'd try to set up the fight to avoid high-speed turns.
I think this might explain why Kelly Johnson preferred to call the compressiblity flaps "compressiblity" flaps instead of "dive" flaps - the gain in dive speed was unremarkable, but it now strikes me that they must have done wonders for the high-speed turn. The replacement of the G-limit dive placard with a no-G-limit placard probably is a key indicator of the improvement achieved with these flaps!
>All of the above also flew the P-51D in combat. All thought the P-51D was markedly superior to the P-38 above 20,000 feet.
That was a comment that quite puzzled me for a while because the P-38 as a turbo-supercharged aircraft should get better and better the higher up the fight takes place. The answer obviously was compressiblity.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
To the best of my recollection, the P-38F didn't have any dive breaks. Hell, it didn't have any combat flaps (Fowler flaps), those didn't come until I think the H model.
The 38 always had Fowler flaps.
-
These don't look like fowler flaps but i litle wonder coz fowler flaps where a lockheed invention.
wich first show up on the 1934 lockheed electra.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/277_1083994447_p38_1.jpg)
or are they fowlers ?
maybe they didn't have a combat setting
-
Greetings Bug:
Those are fowler flaps. Fowler flaps extend backwards from the wings which is shown in the pic. 2ndly I have reference to other text stating that the P-38 had fowler flaps. Hope that's useful!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The 38 always had Fowler flaps.
Wrong.
The manueverability flaps (also called Fowler Flaps or Combat Flaps) was first introduced in the P-38G and was a feature of all subsequent models.
LOCKHEED P-38G LIGHTNING
P-38G: A further powerplant change to two 1,325 hp Allison V-1710-51/55 (F10R, F10L) engines, each giving an additional 100 hp for cruising. The first version to use the so-called "maneuvering" flaps, a feature of all subsequent models. The Fowler-type flaps are given a special combat setting which permits a small extension and droop to provide greatly increased lift for very little drag. The result is a very high degree of maneuverability over a wide range of speeds. The capacity of the auxiliary fuel tanks was doubled and, fitted with the two 300 US gallon auxiliary fuel tanks, the P-38G was the first US fighter to be ferried across the Atlantic by way of Labrador, Greenland and Iceland. The first trans-oceanic flight was made in 1943 by more than 100 Lightnings, escorted by Boeing B-17 Fortresses for navigational purposes. Deliveries began in August 1942.
Source (http://ftd38.tripod.com/p38specs.html)
ack-ack
-
Read your quote again AA.
"The Fowler-type flaps are given a special combat setting which permits a small extension and droop to provide greatly increased lift for very little drag."
I am looking at a pic of YP-38s parked on the ramp at the LAT, Burbank. Guess what? They have Fowler flaps.:)
As can be seen of this F model, it also has Fowler flaps. I believe 'F' becomes before 'G'.
(http://p-38online.com/p38f.jpg)
As can be seen in this pic, the 4th production P-38 had Fowler flaps
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38-1.jpg).
Serial no. for that first production run were Serials nos. 40-644/761 and 40-763/773.
Serials for the F-5A/P-38G production run were as follows:
41-2157 Lockheed F-5A-2-LO Lightning
42-12667/12686 Lockheed F-5A-1-LO Lightning
42-12687/12766 Lockheed P-38G-1-LO Lightning
42-12767/12786 Lockheed F-5A-3-LO Lightning
42-12787/12798 Lockheed P-38G-3-LO Lightning
42-12799/12866 Lockheed P-38G-5-LO Lightning
42-12870/12966 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-12967/12986 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-12987/13066 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13067/13126 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13127/13266 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13267/13326 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13327/13557 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
43-2185/2358 Lockheed P-38G-13-LO Lightning
43-2359/2558 Lockheed P-38G-15-LO Lightning
Notice the '40' and '42/43'. This means the pic of 40-747 was produced 2 years before there was any 'G' model.
So you know what Fowler flaps are here is a rough drawing.
(http://www.simcraft.nl/images/tn_flap_types.jpg)
-
The "fowler flap" is a general term - anything that extends in that manner as described in Milo's pic is considered a "fowler". The Ki-84 also had fowler type flaps - except the Japanese called it in a different name.
-
Need to post the rest of the 190A3 vs P38 flight test...........
The P38 would have had a rough time in any dogfight with a 190.
It did not accellerate as fast (at all altitudes), couldn't change direction as fast (at all altitudes), couldn't outclimb or outdive the 190. Below 22,000 feet in a dogfight the 190 held the cards except turning circle below 140mph IAS. The 190 was faster up through 15,000 feet. From 15,000 to 20,000 speed was equal and above 20,000 the P38 was faster. Climb was similar. Down low the 190 outclimbed the P38, up at high alt the P38 gained the advantage. The 190 was more manverable at all altitudes.
In fact up until the Spitfire Mk IVX Allied pilots were advised to fly a high speed in areas the FW190A operated in and not mix it up in a dogfight. Even in a turn fight no allied fighters could follow a 190 when it rolled out of the turning circle and accellerated away using a shallow dive followed by a zoom climb. Even test pilots who were anticipating the move and recieved warning over the radio found it impossible to follow. That was if the 190 pilot was stupid and entered a turn fight.
Above 23000 feet EVERYTHING was superior to a FW-190.
Here is a nice quote from "The Luftwaffe Figther Force: The view from the cockpit" on the p38.....
" It's main drawbacks were it's vunerability and it's lack of manuverability. German fighters would always attack the P38 in preference to other allied fighters."
Crumpp
-
so pork it there u got ur quote at last.`
no wonder i like killin lw fighters the most
-
I didn't get a chance to read all the posts but I notced a great deal of this discussion was driven by the BAC test of export P-38s. In case no one has said it yet:The lightning twos did not have turbochargers mouted as Turbo chargers were consideted a big US military secret. So any discussion of high alt performance of EXPORT p38s should be read in this light.
The buffetting problem described by the Brits is compressability showing it's ugly head. Compressability manifests itself at the extremely low temps of high alt flying. These temperatures are lowest (as far as where 38s flew) in Northern Europe. This explains why the 8th AF and the Brits seem to have such horrible problems in this area. FYI the lower the temp the lower the mach number at which compression occurs, the high speed buffeting is the first symptim of compression.
As for turngin ability. If you really want to get into it I recommend two other sources Francis Dean's "Americas 100,000" and Martin Caiden's "P-38 The Fork Tailed Devil".
Francis Dean gives, by far, the best at most detailed analysis of the problems of turning a P-38, especially its virtues and vices as a dogfighter.
Its greatest virtue as a turner was that it absolutely would NOT begin rolling when it entered a high speed stall in a turn. It could NOT do it, Aside trom counter rotating engines canceling slipstream and Pfactor. These counter rotating gyroscopes actually add positively to the stablity of the plane in the roll axis.
I highly recommend these two sources. In my Not So Humble Opinion the 38 is grossly undermodeled on account of its weird instabilities in turns.
-
Hi Oltos,
>I didn't get a chance to read all the posts but I notced a great deal of this discussion was driven by the BAC test of export P-38s. In case no one has said it yet:The lightning twos did not have turbochargers mouted as Turbo chargers were consideted a big US military secret.
If you had read the above posts, you'd have noticed that the BAC commented on the lag of the turbos on the Lightning II - appreciate the subtle difference to "LACK of turbos" ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The Lightning II (in the B.A.C tests) had turbos (GE B-2) and the V-1710 F-series engines (L and R). Basicly it was very much same as the P-38F. The Lightning I had no turbos and the V-1710 C-series engines.
Generally B.A.C test report on the Lightning II is a very good read for all interested on the P-38.
gripen
-
B.A.C test report?
Not sure what that is, but the only lightning II ever produced (AF221) was immediately repainted and taken over by the US as a P-38F-13-10, then used in testing. One test it participated in that I can remember off hand was the dropping of 2 torpedos.
That lighnting II did have the counter rotating engines and turbosuperchargers.
The British tests on the Lightning were a Lightning I, and they knew already going into the tests that the Lightning I was unsatisfactory as a High altitude fighter. That's why they ammended the contract prior to the test to produce the majority of the fighters as Lightning II's.
From what I've read, the Brits were using everything they could think of to get out of the lockheed contract. They had to pay for P-38's at a time when Lend-lease aircraft were given away, and frankly they didn't want too. That's why the Brits never flew lightnings, not because the lightning was unsatisfactory, but because they didn't want to pay for them.
Not to mention the fact that after Dec 7, 1941 the premier fighter in the US inventory was the Lightning and nobody (except the 8th AF due to old "BOMBER" thinking) could get enough of them. Even if the Brits accepted the lightnings, there would of been a very slim chance that the US would have gave them away.
The introductions were,
Combat flaps were introduced on P-38F-15-LO.
Dive flaps and power boosted ailerons were introduced on P-38J-25-LO.
I still can't for the life of me understand how the Reputation of the Lightning got so tarnished. It's a crime.
S!
-
Walker42,
Please read the report, it's scanned in the National Archives of Australia (http://www.naa.gov.au/).
gripen
-
Gripen,
Would you happen to have a direct link to it? I'm trying the search feature and can not seem to find it.
Thanks,
S!
-
Walker42,
IIRC their search engine works just local day time. Just choose "Record search" in the main page and log in as a quest, then search for Lightning or something (can't remember,).
gripen
-
ok, cool
I was using this search page http://www.naa.gov.au/search/search.html It must be searching something else, I'll check the other one later.
Thanks
-
Walker42,
Now it's open. Search for "Lightning Aircraft" and you 16 hits. The one to look is "RAAF Command Headquarters - Lightning aircraft". B.A.C. part starts from page 14.
gripen
-
Lightning II? The only Lightning II I know of is the F-22 Lightning II, later becoming the Raptor. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
To the best of my recollection, the P-38F didn't have any dive breaks. Hell, it didn't have any combat flaps (Fowler flaps), those didn't come until I think the H model.
ack-ack
Seeings that we are building a 38 (not gonna say which model, but I can answer on the early aircraft quite nicely) ;) anyways, the difference between flap tracks (the deployment paths) on the 38F and the L is hardly noticeable. The flaps almost identicle, few different inspection panels, and a slightly thinner profile. So, that leads me to believe that they are identical, BUT, I do not believe their is a "combat flap setting" in the cockpit of the 38F, so that itself might be the difference. Plus, unless there was MASSIVE redesign issues of the wing TE that I have never seen, they are still fowler flaps. The major wing redesign of the early 38's vs the
lates are the removal of the turbo air cooling from the otbd wing leading edge, and placing it under the nacelles necitating the redesign to the larger cowls. This also allowed the replacement of le intercoolers with fuel tanks the full length of the otbd wing leading edge. Think of the spilt leading edge on the lates (hinged access) and the smooth earlys!
The "dive brakes" (actually small flaps) where introduced with the J-25, 30 series and were retrofits, they are standard on the L model.
-
Nice find Gripen!
I still haven't had the time to go through it, but did find the time to save each pic to my HD. :)
One thing that caught my eye is that they said they tested on a AF222 as well. I've always read that the only Lightning II was the AF221, definitely interesting there. I can't wait to get a chance and read through the whole thing.
From what I've read, and my understanding on the fowler flaps was that all Lightnings had fowler flaps. However, the combat flaps was the first notch on the flaps where the fowlers would only half extend, allowing increased maneuverability up to approximately 250mph IAS.
These combat flaps were introduced on the P-38F-15-LO, and strengthened on the P-38G.
All the sources I've read could be wrong though.
:)
-
found a good description on the p-38's flaps...
Flaps
Fowler flaps were part of the initial design.
The MANEUVER setting was introduced in mid-production of the F model (F-15). The MANEUVER setting pitched the flaps down 8 degrees and were often used for take-off and more importantly, combat, to decrease turning radius. Thus, this setting of the main flap system was sometimes called "COMBAT" flaps.
When the flaps lever was moved beyond the MANEUVER setting, the flaps would roll back on rails while also increasing pitch. Thus, the flaps were really a two-part, or hybrid design: 1) conventional hinged flap, and 2) Fowler.
(http://firstfighter.servegame.com/p38fowler.gif)
Besides the MANEUVER setting, there were to two other automatic settings: "UP" "DOWN." By manually adjusting the flaps lever, the pilot could also set the flaps anywhere between.
-
Walker42,
Note that there is at least couple duplicates of the report among those scans, so if you got a unclear page then check another copy if it has a clearer page. And if you have a bit of time, make a pdf; actually the report says also a lot of good things about the Lightning.
gripen