Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Morpheus on June 18, 2004, 12:44:07 AM
-
Although the 38 is a dream compared to 3 weeks ago, I along with a few others still think the 38 has a few problems.
One of the biggest I have seen along with Savage, is the fact that she just bleeds WAY too much energy. It was always able to stop on a dime so to speak and perform some very nice over shots but if you pull up in a zoom climb forget it... An A6M can almost keep up with you in a climb. It really just falls on its face.
That right now is my biggest gripe with the 38. For what is saposed to be one if its stronger points it is very lacking. It is my main ride, I've spent many hours in it while in AH1 and I can say right now for a fact that it does not climb now in AH2 the way it did in AH1.
PYRO can you please look into this a bit for us?
Thanks
Morph
-
it might help to be more specific, i.e. what angle and speed ranges, etc.
You know this, but at slow speeds, the ac weight apparently matters more, a G10 will not distance a Zero in a 200mph vert. rope, for ex.
-
I beleive morpheus. It is still the first day AH2 has been live and updates may be to come. Surely the P38 will be updated right HTC?
-
I always love it when someone says plane X caught plane Y and that CAN'T happen.
Yes, it can. Just the facts, man. :)
-
this hasn't been my experience with the P-38. was commenting to Silat how much it now reminds me of the P-38J we used to have in Air Warrior, talking about the RR P38J at that.
ack-ack
-
What I can't understand is how the P38 in AH2 flies perfectly fine on 1 engine and doesn't even need to be trimmed. Obviously, not accurate.
However, the fuel load you take now is more important than ever. The difference between 75% and 100% is akin to carrying and manuvering with an elephant on your back. So long as the rest of the aircraft have the same weight changes, this sounds good to me.
Without a doubt, the P38 in AH2 is different, its biggest loss is the low speed manuvering. It still behaves as tho it has torque...
I know that saying 'one engine torqueless flight' and 'P38 has torque at low speed' may make no sense, but I stand by it.
-
yesterday i flew in a slow turn with a typhoon it flipflopped to evade my gunfire
i tried to follow but got in an unrecovable spin.
I gues i'm not totally converted yet.
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
I always love it when someone says plane X caught plane Y and that CAN'T happen.
Yes, it can. Just the facts, man. :)
It was an example Metavoss.
The spitV is one that compared to the 38 isn't half the performer the 38 is in the vertical climb. And I never caught me, but It did end up coming within 800d from 1.5d with roughly 1/2 of the energy I had.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
yesterday i flew in a slow turn with a typhoon it flipflopped to evade my gunfire
i tried to follow but got in an unrecovable spin.
I gues i'm not totally converted yet.
I had a couple of those unrecoverable spins last night when my flaps auto-retracted in a stall fight with a N1K2. It was impossible to recover from the spin, my controls were completely frozen and no matter what I tried, could only watch as I spun in. AH1, these type of spins above 5,000ft were recoverable now at any alts it's not.
ack-ack
-
also, anyone notice the glass tail seems to be back?
ack-ack
-
Yup akak.
But I guess since MetaVoss doesnt like how I address a problem I should stop addressing them. ;)
I am still waiting to see this new sim he is creating. Where to I send the donation check?
Anyways back on topic here.
-
yes akak, me too.
-
Next person who says " In AH1 this could do that, but not in AH2" gets clubbed over the head. Do you know why it can't do it? CAUSE THIS IS AH2 YOU MORON!!!
They didn't just change the name.
-
morpheus you should post some more.
yes akak, i agree the glass tail is back in a big way.
-
Thought so. It seems it only takes a mean look from an enemy pilot and you'll lose an elevator or one of your stabilizers/rudders. If they stick their tongues out and flip you off, you'll loose your tail boom. Hate to see what happens to the P-38's tail when it actually gets hit by something.
Sometimes when you start your roll down the runway the plane likes to yaw like crazy and doesn't respond to rudder input when this happens. Not constant but enough that it's a little annoying and no, it's not caused by ground wind.
Auto-flaps, suck...wish they'd get rid of them and it's going to take getting used to them again because the spins they throw you in now are pretty much unrecoverable.
Vertical performance...was able to hang that thing on her props without fear. I don't see any backwards steps in comparison to AH1, at least not from my experiences.
As for shedding E too quickly, these last couple of says I've been flying primarily using E tactics and didn't notice any undue loss of E. But then a lot of us P-38 pilots know tricks that can shed our E dramtically in a very short period of time, so really can't say for sure or not if this is a problem. From the fights that I didn't have to dump my E but had to keep it up, I had no troubles at all and by keeping the fight in the vertical, I was able to gain a lot of potential E.
ack-ack
-
Just a couple observations. I got to talk to a real life 38 pilot the other week, and the stall characteristics are much more like he described.
The nose is a tad heaver in the verticle stall now. (ie. you have to be a little more "over the top" to stall to the invert) I was told it did tend to nose down, but Maj McMarrow also said he could tail slide a 38, which would be hard to do if it tended to fall on its face that hard in the vertical. I havnt viewed a film yet to see if you have to be unreasonably past vertical to avoid stalling reverted.
The stall in a turn is much improved. That ridiculous torque snap in a torqueless plane is mostly gone. At some speeds it seems to get wishy-washy then nose down, but it still has some snappyness to it in low speed turns that do not seem accurate. I askes specifically how it felt in a high angle turn, he said it wanted to nose down and did not tend to wing over at all.
I still dont see the instantanious turn rate that the 109 pilots talked about.
I have lost more elevators in one week of beta, and 1 day of AH2, than I have in a couple tours of ah1. The booms seems to hold together ok though.
I rarely have the auto-flap problem, but that is only because I beat the auto-flaps to the punch or anticipate it and ease off.
I have seen a couple strange spins that nothing would work to recover, but havnt experienced enough to critique it.
Didnt really see any real problems with its E performance.
-
Here's a quick and dirty film I whipped up really fast. Unfortunately I started the film almost as I was about to merge with the F4U but you can see from the film what our relative E states where. You'll see by the rope on the F4U, the P-38 still can still hang on its props at below stall speeds. Also notice how the nose quickly swings over, nice and smooth too. And watch the rope on the first Spitfire and you'll see as I go over the top there isn't any control input on my part, the P-38 just does her magic all by her lonesome.
The 3rd fight shows that the P-38 can still turn at slow speeds. Unfortunately, this is were I died from making the wrong move and went up at the wrong angles and finally gave xbrit a good shot on me. Fun fight though.
P-38 film (http://www.hispanicvista.com/ahfilms/film5.ahf)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
But I guess since MetaVoss doesnt like how I address a problem I should stop addressing them. ;)
I am still waiting to see this new sim he is creating. Where to I send the donation check?
Send your check to:
Scorpion Lovers-R-Us
PO Box 0u812
ISpy, Mi. 12345
-
I have never used the P38 much so couldn't talk about any differences just wanted to say AKAK was throwing it around nicely and I got lucky.
Your turn next time bud.
-
Originally posted by DipStick
Send your check to:
Scorpion Lovers-R-Us
PO Box 0u812
ISpy, Mi. 12345
And if you send in your payment in the next 30 days, you'll get a free ride in his P-51D and bf109! So act fast, while this deal lasts because once it's over, it's GONE GONE GONE!
ack-ack
-
Auto-flaps, suck...wish they'd get rid of them and it's going to take getting used to them again because the spins they throw you in now are pretty much unrecoverable.
We've talked about this online before, but basically according to HT, the automatic retraction of flaps is there to enforce limits of flaps usage as stated in the pilots manuals of each planes.
Nobody seems to be sure what the realistic physical limit of flaps on the WW2 planes are - it is logical to assume that the pilots manuals have listed flap deployment speeds according to the "safety first" agenda, rather than its true limits. In real life, probably flaps could be deployed in higher speeds than in AH.
However, the problem with it is that there is no real way to implement how flaps are operated, reaches its limits, and then gets busted. Not to mention that in real life, generally the flaps were never considered as any kind of primary flight control to operate during a fight. Flaps are at best, a secondary flight surface used for limited, specific purposes in take-offs and landings, used as stability gear.
Ofcourse, some of the expert pilots did seem to have found out that in certain situations flaps can be of aid to combat - in slow speed maneuvering, stabilization of the plane, dumping E states for tighter turns, making emergency pull-outs and etc.. Walter Nowotny's account specifically mentions him using flaps as a means to gain momentarily tighter turn radius to achieve firing solution against the more nimble Soviet fighters with his 190, and many more simular cases of flap usage for all pilots of all countries.
But normally, flaps were never intended as combat equipment, and planes that were able to deploy flaps at higher speeds than usual tend to describe it specifically as a special, 'combat setting'. It remains a distinct advantages and traits to some of the planes.
....
Basically the logic behind the "remove auto-retraction" argument, is in reality a "let flaps be able to operate at higher speeds" argument.
Those who request it, especially the P-38 pilots of AH, take on the reason that at certain points of maneuvering the retraction of flaps destabilizes their plane(since retraction increases the stall speed). Thus, in essence, they want their planes to be able to hold its flap positions above the listed speeds in the pilots manual.
HT has clearly stated that according to his agenda, if the auto-retraction is removed the only thing remaining is immediate flap failure at the same level of speed the flaps would auto-retract.
That of course, would not be what the P-38 pilots want. Instead of auto-retraction when they fail to contain their speed under the maximum flap deployment speed, they want to see the flaps locked solid over the listed speed so that the plane maintains its advantages in speed inhibition(to prevent overshoots in close maneuvering) and stabilization(to keep the lowered stall speed intact).
However, to do that. AH must "assume" a certain generic point in flap failure - how much higher speed the flaps can maintain normal operation over the recommended/listed max speed for deployment. It's either that, or random failures which nobody wants to see.
That would seem fine and dandy at first, but since there's no way HT would grant such a waiver to only the P-38, it would apply to all other planes as well.
Suddenly, all the planes in AH will have higher flap deployment speeds than before, and ultimately, all the pilots would be utilizing this fact to their own profit - which would mean the air combat of AH would start to tear away from reality, as in flaps becoming a very important, primary control in maneuvering, which in real life was never the case, even for the 'experten'.
.....
In other words, in the long run it would actually hurt the P-38L, and most other US planes to even higher a degree, because one of their most distinctive traits in AH was that only they had the ability to utilize flaps as combat devices at higher speeds. The P-51s and P-47s have combat flaps deployable upto 400mph. The P-38L and the F4U starts popping flaps at much lower speed than that, but still way higher than most of the planes on AH.
I'm not an expert in any kind of US plane, but I believe that allows me to retain a much more objective view on the flap issue - since I'm only average, the distinct traits of US planes catch my immediate attention and allow me to compare with the LW planes I usually fly.
For me, one of the most impressive and envious advantages the US planes hold over my usual Messerschmitt or Fockewulf, is that despite none of the US planes are decisively better in maneuverabilty, they always seem to be able to gain an edge during maneuvering. Not because they can turn so well like a Spitfire, but because;
1) They can dump speed at a higher rate at high speed maneuvering(which lets them outturn 109s and 190s, even La-7s at speeds between 250~400mph)
and
2) greatly stabilize the planes at low speed maneuvering(between speed ranges of 150mph~250mph).
I've stated this in some other thread, but the most fearful fact about US planes when I'm facing them in a Messerschmitt, is that they can pull off a radical change of nose angle during low-speed, rolling scissors which the 109 cannot follow.
As I saddle up behind them they attempt to pull rolling scissors. If I fail to bring them down before they start that move, I have no choice but to try and follow it(unless I just cowardly zoom and accelerate away). For the first few rolls and scissors I can follow. but when the speed of both planes drop down at the critical "200mph line", the US planes rolls over high, starts popping out flaps, kicks rudders and whip their noses over into my plane. This is something no 109 can follow, much less a 190.
To counter that I must also follow it upwards, and initiate a slower roll so I can get out of the way of their guns, keep the enemy in front of me, and keep saddled up behind them - except at that critical "200mph line", my 109 cannot pull into them, because the AoA is too high while my speed is too low. That is the decisive moment where the ability of being able to use flaps while the other plane cannot, shines out like a beacon. I need to use flaps to follow my enemy, but I cannot use them because my speed is still at the 200mph borderline!
That critical moment I have met time again, against many expert US plane pilots - I've been outturned and outmaneuvered even in much more nimble Bf109F-4, fighting against a F4U corsair by that move. I've been decsively outturned in a slow, low-alt, pure sustained turning contest against P-51Ds in a Bf109G-10, G-6, and even a G-2. I've been outmaneuvered by P-47s in a much nimbler Bf109.
Were the other planes to be able to pop flaps out open at higher speeds, it would seriously hurt the US planes as their relative advantage is immediately lost. I can't say it would be everytime, but certainly in many cases a 109 or a 190 would be able to follow a P-38 in slow-speed maneuvering, where it could not have currently.
I look very highly upon IL-2/FB, but the one serious drawback they have, is they've taken the 'realistic approach' to flaps, and ironically, have made the fights more or less unrealistic as a whole.
The way IL-2/FB depicts their flaps is probably what the AH P-38 pilots would want.. But because of that, all the planes there can use full flaps and gears at least 20~30mph higher than it could in AH. Overshoot maneuvers are incredibly harder to pull off than compared to AH, because when somebody senses an overshoot coming they can simply pop full flaps out and actutate the insta-air break mode.
Everyone, including all kinds of 'dweebs' and 'n00bs' are aware of this fact, and the exploitation of flap usage during combat is so high, that usage of flaps during maneuvering has embedded itself as a mandatory lesson to be learnt when fighting.
In AH, using flaps means that we go into extreme low speed maneuvering. It takes skill and careful management to drop into such low speeds to fight. And only after we reach so low speeds, we begin to use flaps carefully, to squeeze out every possible drop of ACM possible in our planes. The US planes of AH maintain a huge and characteristic advantage over other planes of other airforces of the world.
In IL-2/FB, the flaps and gears in combat, are mandatory for all planes. They are one-touch air brakes/stability devices simply turned on/off. The only real discipline required is to not use full flaps(landing settings) over something like 350km/h(roughly about 218mph, and it's IAS, not even TAS!!) - combat or take-off settings can be used at much higher speeds and maintained that way.
Ofcourse, IL-2/FB doesn't have auto-retract. But for that piece of 'realism' the air combat has paid the price of 'unrealism'. The Messerchmitts of AH have reduced elevator authority at speeds over 300mph - over such speeds a US plane will outturn any 109. Well in FB, I simply chop throttle and pop out combat flap settings at those speeds - simple to use, simple to follow. I'd doubt any real-life pilot would feel so comfortable disregarding the warnings plane makers have issued during combat in such a manner.. where failure of a plane equipment could mean life or death.
So I must comment, "becareful what you wish for".
-
im happy when i hear of anything becoming weaker on that P38 its way to strong il set up behide one and its stronger then a P47 it seems llike
no way a P38 was that much stronger then the rest of the planes in RL as it is in AH:rolleyes:
kind of like the tempest is way to strong to
-
In real life the P-38 was a very tough plane, could take a lot of damage and with basically double of everything, could bring the pilot back home where as a single engine plane couldn't.
Now, not saying it was rougher than the Jug, that thing was basically a tank with wings strapped on as an after thought, but it was a very tough plane.
There's a story about a flight of P-38s over the Pacific hearing a pilot cry out over the radio that he had lost an engine and sounded panicky on the radio. The P-38 pilots, thinking this guy was a new pilot, tried to reassure the guy that he had a 2nd engine to fall back on. That's when the guy piped up on the radio that he was a P-51D.
ack-ack
-
Here's another film of a low speed/stall fight against a P-38 and a N1K2. There are some parts of the fight were you see me fight to keep the plane from snap rolling to one side. It did feel like I had to fight that snap roll more than the planes I was fighting at times. But then you'll hear my stall buzzer going off and I was riding the edge so it could have been accelerated stalls I was experiencing.
Too bad my gunnery really sucks now, only managed a couple of minor hits on the P-38's wingtips a couple of times. But I did manage to hold them both off until the cavalry arrived.
2v1 (http://www.hispanicvista.com/ahfilms/film6.ahf)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
In real life the P-38 was a very tough plane, could take a lot of damage and with basically double of everything, could bring the pilot back home where as a single engine plane couldn't.
Now, not saying it was rougher than the Jug, that thing was basically a tank with wings strapped on as an after thought, but it was a very tough plane.
There's a story about a flight of P-38s over the Pacific hearing a pilot cry out over the radio that he had lost an engine and sounded panicky on the radio. The P-38 pilots, thinking this guy was a new pilot, tried to reassure the guy that he had a 2nd engine to fall back on. That's when the guy piped up on the radio that he was a P-51D.
ack-ack
It seems I read a quote somewhere about a couple of WWII pilots talking, and the P38 guy says soemthing about "it was nice flying the '38, sometimes it brought me home on just one engine..", and the other pilot (P51 or P47?) said soemting to the effect that "my plane ALWAYS brought me home on one engine!"
-
Kweassa, the P-38 has Fowler flaps with a combat setting, they were expressly intended to be used in combat, and as such, yes, they ARE a combat flight control, and a primary flight control for combat. The P-38 is a different animal. Not only did pilots use the Fowlers in combat, but they also used the dive flaps to pitch the nose up in combat as well. I know several who used them to make a successful snapshot to take out an enemy plane.
-
Kweassa, the P-38 has Fowler flaps with a combat setting, they were expressly intended to be used in combat, and as such, yes, they ARE a combat flight control, and a primary flight control for combat. The P-38 is a different animal. Not only did pilots use the Fowlers in combat, but they also used the dive flaps to pitch the nose up in combat as well. I know several who used them to make a successful snapshot to take out an enemy plane.
Basically all planes of the war (with possible exception of British two-stage flaps) with multiple flap positions either had 'combat' settings, or allowed pilot for its use during combat in certain situations.
However, that fact does not make any difference in that in AH the flap deployment is limited by recommended speeds mentioned in the pilots manuals. No reason to expect anything different with the P-38s at all.
The flaps will retract, if the plane speeds exceed the restriction speed. The only feasible alternative stated by HT, is them being damaged immediately - which is in no way anything I may consider something beneficial to the P-38 than it ever was.
(more discussions on this in the Gameplay Forums)
-
I was just in the MA stall fighting a Spit9 and spit14.
I went up over the top for a shot, 1 notch away from being full flaps. With out warning the 38 just stalled out into an uncontrolable flat spit. I was 10k when I entered into this stall. I went down to the deck and augerd being unable to regain control. I can see doing some radical manuvers and pushing things to the limits but this was not the case. At all... The plane gave no warning, no signs of being near the envelope, it just fell out of the sky and into the ground.
This was unheard of in the 38. IRL and in AH1.
This to me is unacceptable and proves to ME that there are still problems with the 38s flight Mod. This isn't the first time I have not been able to regain control of the 38 after going into a stall like this. But the first several times were at fairly low alt and I figured maybe I just need a little more alt and time to be able to regain control.
If you can't pull out of a bad stall from 10k in a 38 there is something wrong there... That was the first time ever in the 2 years of playing I have not been able to pull out of a stall, and at that alt... I fear it wont be the last.
-
I'm still not postive that there is something wrong with the low speed handling of the P-38. Only once did the P-38 show a tendency to snap roll while turning hard at low speed and I was able to recover quickly.
The other night I was sure that there might be something wrong with how hard I was struggling with the controls but last night I was flying for more aggressively than the other night. Last night I was able to out turn and stall fight a Hurricane with only one elevator and aileron, a Spitfire without using flaps and bagged 3 out of 4 in a 4v1. And not to mention the numerous kick bellybutton fights I had with Frenchy and Nomde. Those guys always make me fly my plane to the extreme edges of the envelope. I did not have the troubles with keeping the P-38 in control like I had the previous night. So is there something wrong with the P-38 at low speeds? There could be but at this point I'm still not convinced.
There are a couple of minor problems though. On take off the shadow from the wings appear in front of the plane. Glass tail does seem to be back. And the P-38 gets this weird yaw motion sometimes on take off if you've got auto-take off enabled.
ack-ack
-
I find myself struggling a lot more than was neccessary in AHI to keep the 38 stable in low speed turns with the flaps out. You really need a fine touch with the rudder to keep good control of it now.
That said, everyone else seems to be having a harder time as well, so things balance out. I came out on top against a few La-5's today, one time missing an aileron. It's got a couple of new quirks, but it's still a great fighter.
-
>>About the only significant short coming of the Lightning was spin/.stall recovery, which could be a bear, especially at low altitude. That's is why this film cautions strongly against entering a spin below 10,000', Tom McGuire, intent on surpassing leading ace Dick Bong, lost his life when he attempted to mix up it up at low altitude with a Japanese Ki-43 "Oscar" while still <<
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_3.asp
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
>>In extremely tight turns, the stall speed increases dramatically. Many times a single engine airplane would spin in from making too tight a turn. However, the P-38 when stalled in a tight turn would not spin, but just buffet (shake) a little. Thus we could stay right on the ragged edge without fear of a stall/spin accident. <<
http://www.bushwings.com/Diary1.html
>>a. Spin Characteristics
The spin is fast, but recovery is prompt and easy if the proper technique is used.
b. Recovery
The airplane can be brought out of the spin any time by kicking full rudder against the spin for a minimum of half a turn then easing forward the control column. The procedure is as follows:<<
http://home.tiscali.dk/winthrop/p38op8.html
to search inside the texts key word * stall *
-
Originally posted by Hades55
>>About the only significant short coming of the Lightning was spin/.stall recovery, which could be a bear, especially at low altitude. That's is why this film cautions strongly against entering a spin below 10,000', Tom McGuire, intent on surpassing leading ace Dick Bong, lost his life when he attempted to mix up it up at low altitude with a Japanese Ki-43 "Oscar" while still <<
Watch that P-38 film at Zeno's and watch how gentle the stall is in the P-38 and how easy it was to recover from.
As for McGuire, that's a rather simplified account of his death.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Watch that P-38 film at Zeno's and watch how gentle the stall is in the P-38 and how easy it was to recover from.
As for McGuire, that's a rather simplified account of his death.
ack-ack
Sometimes that is true of the AH P-38, and sometimes not. More often it is not true.
Yes, that account of McGuire's crash is missing a great deal of detail, actually, it's missing about 95% of the story.
-
I dont know akak, maby the differend opinions is for differend models.
Have we any changes between J & L models at wings ? sortened
maby ?
No time to look my books.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Here's another film of a low speed/stall fight against a P-38 and a N1K2. There are some parts of the fight were you see me fight to keep the plane from snap rolling to one side. It did feel like I had to fight that snap roll more than the planes I was fighting at times. But then you'll hear my stall buzzer going off and I was riding the edge so it could have been accelerated stalls I was experiencing.
Too bad my gunnery really sucks now, only managed a couple of minor hits on the P-38's wingtips a couple of times. But I did manage to hold them both off until the cavalry arrived.
2v1 (http://www.hispanicvista.com/ahfilms/film6.ahf)
Crap, wrong film. That film is of that weird yaw motion on take off sometimes I get.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Hades55
I dont know akak, maby the differend opinions is for differend models.
Have we any changes between J & L models at wings ? sortened
maby ?
No time to look my books.
No, the J and L models retain the same wings. In fact there were few changes to the P-38 wing throughout production. The fillet where the inner wing meets the nacelle was changed to a larger radius. The dive flaps were added. And the intercoolers in the leading edges of the outer wings were removed, and 55 gallon fuel tanks installed in their place. The pretty well covers it.
-
Kweassa, the problem with that fairy feature of the autoretract is that it *only* screws the P-38 since its the *only* plane that relies on flaps during combat.
In knife fights, the 38 will generally have half of its flaps out... but if it does a nose-below horizon manouver at high G's that for a SPLIT second touches the mph ticker that makes the flaps autoretract... and just like in any other plane, if you are pulling high g's and change your flap settings while pulling high g's, your plane will lose control. Once you lose control you lose your angles, you may even allow the con on your 6 while you're busy spinning out of control... AND to boot the autoretract feature keeps pulling your flaps up as you spin downward, making it even worse.
I say, increase the autoretract limit on the P-38 only. By 100mph above the current setting. However, to avoid the 38 pilots from abusing it, ,introduce a very violent screen shake from the current setting up to the new +100mph retract point. That way the pilot will get very little benefit of having the flaps out 100mph above other planes, since they will be really hard pressed to get a shot out with the cockpit shaking..but they will still be able to manouver.
-
51s, 47s are atop a long list of other planes that rely on flaps.. I depend on flaps to save my bellybutton when flying D9s and 152s, and in those too, it's a stick in the wheel to have flaps automatically retract....
They could be kept automatic as they are now, if at least the model included a gradual movement of the flaps, instead of the present binary.
-
Kweassa, the problem with that fairy feature of the autoretract is that it *only* screws the P-38 since its the *only* plane that relies on flaps during combat.
I strongly disagree. I also think a lot of the US plane pilots would disagree.
As I have pointed out the key ingredient for the USAAF/USN planes in gaining the slight, but incredibly critical advantage against LW planes during close range, low/mid speed maneuvering is that they can use flaps at least some 40 mph earlier than the LW planes.
As a Bf109 enthusiast I feel it everyday. It's not a common to meet someone who really knows how to fly P-51s and P-47s, but in the instances where I actually find someone who is determined to E-fight and not rely on the Bore-N-Zoom, I gasp in envy everytime they whip their noses around during rolling scissors because I know, that I cannot follow that in the 109.
The 109 may turn better than most of the US planes, but the stability, ease, and abruptness of angles they can pull during scissoring is what makes them such feared enemies in every close-range maneuvering contest. And that power comes from the ability to use flaps.
I've no idea why you would think only the P-38 is a plane that utilizes flaps with such efficiency.
In knife fights, the 38 will generally have half of its flaps out... but if it does a nose-below horizon manouver at high G's that for a SPLIT second touches the mph ticker that makes the flaps autoretract... and just like in any other plane, if you are pulling high g's and change your flap settings while pulling high g's, your plane will lose control. Once you lose control you lose your angles, you may even allow the con on your 6 while you're busy spinning out of control... AND to boot the autoretract feature keeps pulling your flaps up as you spin downward, making it even worse.
So what? All the planes fly with the same limitations in that they must abide by the speed set for the flaps, stated in the pilots manuals.
You think the P-38 is the only plane that's got the trouble? I fly against Spit9s with the Bf109G-2 everyday.
Everytime I lure a Spit9 into close-range maneuvering which I think I can win, I must watch over my speed because more often than not, dragging the Spit into a near stall, and then whipping my nose around to bear guns on it, is the most critical important move I have to pull to win.
I have to drag the Spitfire to a very low speed where turn radius has almost no meaning, and only by using flaps I can sustain control over my 109 to whip the nose around and shoot it.
Hey, your flaps retreat at something like 225mph IAS. The 109's such a damned accelerating machine that even with full rudders the speed pushes over 190mph in a whim, and the flaps start retracting immediately, depriving me of the only chance I had to humble such a superior maneuvering plane like the Spitfire.
But who's fault is that? Did I lose because the flaps? No, I lost those battles because I made a mistake.
I assumed, that the Spit9 pilot was in a lower skill level than what I had, and I assumed, my skill was enough to keep the 109 from accelerating and losing the edge. But no, I made a wrong judgement, and thus I lose the edge, and I get shot down.
Obviously the same thing with P-38 pilots. You guys engage more nimble planes, think you can humble them easily, and then it turns out the enemy squirms more than you expected it could. You start pulling a lot more maneuvers than you thought you needed, and at some point you go into an rolling overshoot contest with nose-below-horizon attitude. It accelerates above the point you thought you could keep under, and bam, the flaps retract.
So is that the fault of the flap system? No, I think its the pilots fault. If he had foreseen that happening, he should have given up close-range maneuvering and stuck to more conservative E-fighting.
I say, increase the autoretract limit on the P-38 only. By 100mph above the current setting.
You gotta be kidding.
However, to avoid the 38 pilots from abusing it, ,introduce a very violent screen shake from the current setting up to the new +100mph retract point. That way the pilot will get very little benefit of having the flaps out 100mph above other planes, since they will be really hard pressed to get a shot out with the cockpit shaking..but they will still be able to manouver.
Being the only plane in the whole plane set which can use flaps above 100mph listed speeds, is already abusing all that can be abused.
-
Kweassa, I am not jumping in to advocate anything, but I am going to disagree with you. The 38s flaps were designed specifically for combat use, as opposed to a tactical after thought of "oh, btw you can use a notch or 2 of flaps in combat for a lift boost". In AH I have had 6+ kill sorties in 51s, 47s, F4Us without ever touching the flaps. Not so in the 38. The 38 cannot retain E like these other planes due to compressibility. Due to that E cap in its design, it needs that low speed manovering stability.
As a general rule, the fast planes dont turn all that well, and the good turning planes arent all that fast. That is exactly where the complaint comes from. The 38 is somewhere in between. It cannot roll in with a load of E and zoom away with 95% of its E still in tact like the other planes you mentioned.
Its use in the game is not some gamey "throw out the anchor" brake manover, which you seem to keep pointing to in your examples. It is a necessity for low speed manovering for a plane that cant run away from many situations, and cant out turn many situations without flaps.
You who are are so into realism say its ok to have a flap dependant af hamstrung by a game feature, based on a book value that does not reflect structual failure value. In real life the p38 did pull low speed manovers with more nimble japaneese fighters, and prevail, and were abused in the process. One of McGuire's wingmen had to have his 38 replaced from him just trying to stay with McGuire (warped wings). And then you say its the pilots fault for not counting the ticks on the speedometer when the "combat control surfaces" take on a mind of their own at an arbitrary speed.
OTOH, like I said earlier, I have adjusted to the "game feature" and it rarely causes me harm. That does not however prevent me from arguing that the 38 is a special case when it comes to flaps. How other planes (in the game) wish to employ their flaps when they were not designed as their strong suit does not concern me.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
OTOH, like I said earlier, I have adjusted to the "game feature" and it rarely causes me harm. That does not however prevent me from arguing that the 38 is a special case when it comes to flaps. How other planes (in the game) wish to employ their flaps when they were not designed as their strong suit does not concern me.
I am of the opinion that we should lose the autoretract feature or have the option of turning it off. If we have this option and abuse it by not watching the speed as needed per flap notch being deployed, then it damages said flaps and they remain stuck in that postion til you die or replane.
Also Kweassa said that mainly/only the US planes used flaps/combat flaps for manuevering and depended on them as well in scissor type moves and reversals. I fly the F4U series, and I use all notches depending on speed of the fight and angle ( nose up, top of loop, etc...)
I love the 38 as well I'm just no good with nose mounted guns. With out flaps you are stuck with Boom N Zoom, with ability to use flaps you gain the advantage to E fight. with autoretracting flaps, you just have to adjust on how to keep your speed equalized for said notch of flaps being extended. and if you spin.....you guessed it! you screwed up and made a mistake. It isn't the games faught.
I too for the most part have adjusted like murdr, to this game feature. Is all we can do til something changes.
:D
-
The 38 cannot retain E like these other planes due to compressibility. Due to that E cap in its design, it needs that low speed manovering stability.
I don't see how compressability has got anything to do with E retaintion unless you plan to fly 450+mph. nor how it relate to auto retracting flaps.
As a general rule, the fast planes dont turn all that well, and the good turning planes arent all that fast. That is exactly where the complaint comes from. The 38 is somewhere in between.
well, the P47 is marginally faster than the 38 (but accelerates so bad it's actually slower) and turns worse. So the 38 has limitations - is that suprising? wrong?
The 38 is no great preformer in any category (save zoom), but is well balanced.
That does not however prevent me from arguing that the 38 is a special case when it comes to flaps. How other planes (in the game) wish to employ their flaps when they were not designed as their strong suit does not concern me.
So you want a special feature just for the 38.
The auto-retracting flaps as I understand are simplistic modeling. I'd much prefere HTC would spend their time modelling other stuff than how exacly flaps behave in too high speeds and how/when they are damaged.
wouldn't you prefere a P38J added intead of some elaborated flap modeling for the 250-270 speed range?
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
I don't see how compressability has got anything to do with E retaintion unless you plan to fly 450+mph. nor how it relate to auto retracting flaps.
Duh, dive a p47, a p51, and a p38 from 12K to the deck, make an accurate shot on an object, and immediatly zoom back up to alt until stall speed, and tell me compressability has nothing to do with E retention.
well, the P47 is marginally faster than the 38 (but accelerates so bad it's actually slower) and turns worse. So the 38 has limitations - is that suprising? wrong?
The 38 is no great preformer in any category (save zoom), but is well balanced.
What part of the 38 flaps being specifically designed for combat usage didnt you understand? Pointing at the pros/cons of the P47 has nothing to do with that. As far as I know the P47 was not know for being able to stall fight with Georges with its combat flaps.
So you want a special feature just for the 38.
I could swear I specifically said I wasnt advocating any changes.
However failure to join a crusade does not exclude me from giving my opinion.
-
There's no such thing as a flap specifically designed for combat usage. All flaps are secondary devices of control originating from specific need for stabilizing the plane in take-offs and landings.
Now in some cases, the stability it offers is considered combatworthy and the designers may concentrate in implementing flaps for more than one purpose.
However, the picture of "flap usage" you are depicting is a false one which derives from the long tradition of how limited gaming environment warps and distorts reality despite a 'realistic' implementation of certain devices.
It's basically the same thing as trimming systems. In real life trims were never a combat device at all, nor were they ever used heavily in combat. The only limited instances of trim usage was when it was absolutely inevitable.
Reducing the workload for the pilot was always a top priority among any combat plane. Pilots trimmed their planes before it entered combat, to a certain limited setting. They never had to trim stuff during combat. Drawing one hand away from the "HOTAS" to work on levers and dials in the midst of heat of battle is something no real life pilot would do.
Flaps are the same thing. They serve limited purposes in combat, and only in specific, certain occasions would flaps become flightworthy. Deploying flaps during combat means sacrificing incredible amounts of speed, not to mention the constant work load of lowering and raising them. If you think real life pilots would do the "gamey" stuff we do, moving flaps up down up down up down all the time, then you're getting the wrong picture.
The only reason you feel inclined to use such flap deployment during combat is because it is but a mere touch of button on a stick to us gamers. Not to mention that the constant experience we gain allows us to pull off extremely advanced manuevers, allowing us to combat superior maneuvering planes in their own game, with a inferior maneuvering fighter.
Compared to the real life where a simple flat scissoring or a timed barrel roll was for the experienced, a typical 1vs1 combat featuring rolling scissors in AH is what would make a normal real-life combat pilot drop his jaws open in disbelief - as they had to fight disorientation, G-forces, pressure and nervousness, dangers of collision and a million other things in the real world.
In terms of logic, how many average level combat pilots would be willing to put himself against a plane such as a N1K2 with a P-38L, in a slow speed maneuvering contest? In a game which the enemy almost absolutely excelles in?
In essence, what you and others is arguing is to grant a waiver for your plane of choice, to make it become better in a certain type of combat you enjoy, without stopping to think that the current failures or problems you meet during combat is not a consequence of one's own actions, but a fault in the system.
The stipulations are clear. The conditions are the same for all planes. All of the planes are limited in flap usage by historic numbers, specifically for the purpose of enforcing the pilots to abide by the rules set by the book.
If the P-38L pilots meet frustrations in keeping the fight slow enough to retain flap usage, then it is simply that they chose a wrong way to fight. They misjudged what the enemy and his plane can do - most probably the enemy plane being a slower, more nimble one than the P-38L.
Simply they thought they still could best it at their own game, and then failed to bring it down, and during some part of combat the acceleration of the plane pushes the heavy P-38 over a certain speed line and the flaps retract. How is this "disadvantageous" to the P-38 when all planes must ultimately face the same agenda when they decide to use flaps?
I've said this, and I'll say it again. If the flaps are ever implemented in that manner requested, it will be in no way exclusive to the P-38. If the P-38 will be able to retain flap deployment without them being damaged over listed speeds, then so will all planes.
And all planes being able to drop flaps at a formerly unimaginable speed, is gonna change the game into an incredibly dweebey manner, not to mention it will ultimately hurt the P-38 more than ever since now, the planes the P-38 has to fight against, will also be able to use flaps at higher speeds when they need.
Currently, you may be able to overshoot a Spit during a nose-down scissoring by use of flaps - since the Spitfire currently has to wait to drop down to under 200mph to deploy flaps. You think you'll be able to do that when every Spit pilot realizes that they can start using flaps with higher drag and larger E-dumping at 300mph?
As I said, Il-2/FB is an amazing simulation, but the consequences of flap action as they've implemented, which is pretty much what you people are asking for in AH, is that there's no such thing as overshooting as we know in AH. Any plane can pop out flaps at any speed under 350km/h at whim. Everybody uses flaps as a combat device with the same amount of importance as ailerons and elevators, when clearly such was not the case in a typical real life combat.
In real life, flap usage during combat was limited to certain situations only. The only planes that could conveniently utilize it at higher speeds are the US planes. Current scheme of auto-retraction ensures AH combat sticks to that, instead of making "pop flaps" a standard combat procedure when entering a turn.
You're asking to remove all that relative advantage the current system holds for US planes, and you're mistaken if you're thinking it will make the P-38 better. Oh you'll be able to hold flaps out and keep the P-38 stable and slower, but now, since flaps are for everyone, the nimbler enemy planes will also be using flaps making them even more nimble and more stable than it ever was before.
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
I am of the opinion that we should lose the autoretract feature or have the option of turning it off. If we have this option and abuse it by not watching the speed as needed per flap notch being deployed, then it damages said flaps and they remain stuck in that postion til you die or replane.
:D
I wanted to make it clear I wasn't asking for anything more as in increase of speed for flaps, I was merely wishing to have a feature that allowed to turn the autoretract on or off. and if we are granted this wish, I wish that the speeds remain the same, unchanged, except if you don't manage your flaps they will become damaged and you are stuck where they break at! IT will be more of a challenge for the people that use flaps....I want a challenge in this way if possible...
added: or maybe 1 side breaks and the other retracts....make em think twice about watching speeds ....no? lol
-
The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life .
It was a considerable advantage, in real life.
The P-38 did not have any sort of auto retract feature on the flaps, in real life.
That is not some sort of gamey trick, it is simply the way it was, in real life.
Pilots could and did use these settings, and also used the dive flaps, during combat, in real life.
While it would certainly be better to never get slow in a plane like the P-38, it was more common than you think. Aggressive pilots did things like that on a fairly regular basis.
All that the P-38 pilots here are asking for is the ability to have complete manual control over the flaps. NO ONE[/SIZE] has asked for the P-38 to be given the ability to deploy flaps at ANY SPEED WITH IMPUNITY. No one has asked that the flaps not be damaged if the speed exceeds their structural limit. If improper use damages the flaps because they fail to retract them, I'm certain they'd accept that. After all, we did in AW.
Oh and real combat pilots did use rolling scissors and other complex maneuvers in real life. Despite what you might like to think, it was a lot more common than you'd have people believe. Consider for example Ralph Parr using a rolling scissors at ground level in an F-86 against a Mig 15 , while he was engaged in a fight with the odds about 15:1 against him.
P-38 pilots in the Pacific, and even some in Europe, used differential throttling, which, considering how it had to be done, is pretty complex use of the throttles for a combat situation.
One thing you should know about really good P-38 pilots from World War II. They were the kind of pilots who could operate the complex controls of the P-38 without looking, by feel alone. The best P-38 pilots like Ilfrey, Lowell, Olds, and a host of others could and did fly with one hand on the yoke, and the other operating throttles and both Fowler flaps and dive flaps. With boosted ailerons and the long lever the yoke was on, the P-38 could be hustled and manhandled with ease by a talented pilot with one hand.
-
You see, we are talking about two different things here. Quote's from John A. Tilly suggest that even though dogfighting in the P38 was played down, and even though training and seinor officers like McGuire said never to turn with an enemy fighter, often that is what engagment turned into. Are you saying that these 90 mph engagments by McGuire, Tilly, and others were managed without the use of combat flaps?
You keep hammering the overshoot manovers. Meanwhile I am talking about the speed widows where flap usage gives the p38 the optimum turn rate at those speeds. You are talking scissors, and barrel rolls, where I am talking about going round in circles. I am not talking sim fantasy. When push comes to shove and its down to turning circles, the p38 is riding on its flaps. It was really employed that way. In that type of situation where the 'book speed' is approched for a matter of seconds in a nose down portion of a revolution, it does seem rather stupid to have your plane trown into a spin to the 38 pilot.
On one hand your saying in real life pilots didnt have time to employ thing like flaps, while on the other hand your saying that in the game its the pilots fault for not watching his speed closely enough during that 1 revolution out of 10 that overspeeds the 'book value' on the flaps for a brief second.
And yet I say again, I dont offer a suggested change. But when you discount the same concerns expressed by others, I have to disagree, because of how they were employed, and why they were employed more heavlily with the 38.
-
Originally posted by bozon
wouldn't you prefere a P38J added intead of some elaborated flap modeling for the 250-270 speed range?
Bozon
No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.
ack-ack
LOL
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life .
It was a considerable advantage, in real life.
The P-38 did not have any sort of auto retract feature on the flaps, in real life.
That is not some sort of gamey trick, it is simply the way it was, in real life.
Pilots could and did use these settings, and also used the dive flaps, during combat, in real life.
While it would certainly be better to never get slow in a plane like the P-38, it was more common than you think. Aggressive pilots did things like that on a fairly regular basis.
One thing you should know about really good P-38 pilots from World War II. They were the kind of pilots who could operate the complex controls of the P-38 without looking, by feel alone. The best P-38 pilots like Ilfrey, Lowell, Olds, and a host of others could and did fly with one hand on the yoke, and the other operating throttles and both Fowler flaps and dive flaps. With boosted ailerons and the long lever the yoke was on, the P-38 could be hustled and manhandled with ease by a talented pilot with one hand.
Exactly, (I had to go to my books to make sure it was Tilly lol) Tilly's description of his 2nd kill, and his reflection on how he was going aginst his training by turning with that Oscar sprang to mind right away while reading kweassa's reply.
Be careful what you ask for though. Instead of having structural failure at a speed modeled after real life situation, it would be the recommended max speed, which is no different than the present situation.
How can you be so unreasonable to expect to use the 38 as it was actually used anyway? How dare you think its unreasonable that following a bogie at 100mph in a flat turn followed by a split-s into a high yo-yo shouldnt get you killed. Just because at the bottom of the split-s you hit 154mph and exceeded the specs by 4mph for 1/2 a second. Serves you right. [rolleyes]
-
wouldn't you prefere a P38J added intead of some elaborated flap modeling for the 250-270 speed range?
No i would rather have them to had left some 47 models and make some more P38's
Stupid question
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, I'd rather have the auto-flaps taken out then have a P-38J.
ack-ack
Yeah, especially since we already have a J-25-Lo that is masquerading as an L-5-Lo.
By the way, since it is supposed to be an L-5-Lo, and carries the weight, Iwann know where my tail warning radar is.
-
The P-38 could and did use a combat maneuvering setting on the Fowler flaps at 275MPH in real life. It was a considerable advantage, in real life.
All that the P-38 pilots here are asking for is the ability to have complete manual control over the flaps. NO ONE has asked for the P-38 to be given the ability to deploy flaps at ANY SPEED WITH IMPUNITY. No one has asked that the flaps not be damaged if the speed exceeds their structural limit. If improper use damages the flaps because they fail to retract them, I'm certain they'd accept that. After all, we did in AW.
Have any of you actually tested the flaps out in AH2?
The P-38L in AH2 flap usage is as follows. Open mouth, insert foot, people.
* Full flaps - upto 245mph TAS, over 245 mph TAS it retracts one notch.
* Anything under full flaps, are maintained upto 300mph TAS. When speed is higher than 300mph it retracts until the speed comes lower, or flaps are full up.
..
The P-38L of AH2 maintains flap settings higher than combat settings upto 300mph. It is a considerable advantage in AH2 as well.
If this is still not enough for you people, then obviously, no matter how expert P-38 fliers you guys are, you guys are flying it wrong.
This effectively eliminates the grounds for your argument Captain, does it not? Since, if the rest of the P-38 enthusiasts knew this fact, it means that they indeed, were asking to be able to use flaps ay speeds HIGHER than historical settings.
If they did not know about this fact, then it means they were commenting on things which they haven't even tested out.
Either way, it hurts your argument.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The P-38L in AH2 flap usage is as follows. Open mouth, insert foot, people.
* Full flaps - upto 245mph TAS, over 245 mph TAS it retracts one notch.
* Anything under full flaps, are maintained upto 300mph TAS. When speed is higher than 300mph it retracts until the speed comes lower, or flaps are full up.
Auto retraction of flaps is based on indicated airspeed not true airspeed.
Tested results at full flaps, level flight at 10k alt beginning at 125mph:
150mph (IAS) autoretract of 1 notch of flaps (4 notches out);
200mph (IAS) autoretract of 1 notch of flaps (3 notches out);
250mph (IAS) autoretract to all flaps in (0 notches out).
Note: to achieve speeds in excess of 175mph with 4 notches of flaps out I had to dive. Same situation above 200(IAS) with 3 notches out.
I have an ointment that might be helpful with that case of athlete's tongue Kweassa, just drop me a line and I'll send it right along :D .
Cheers,
-
If that be the case then the discrepancy of IAS and TAS according to flight alititude fuels even more confusion to this issue - as the alt I've tested gave out more than 300mph TAS while the IAS indicated merely 250mph, as compared to the lower altitudes where 250mph IAS remains around 250~260mph TAS.
For instance, the Bf109 Gustav pilots manual confirms that either a) full flaps should not be enaged over 250km/h(155mph) or b) both undercarriage and flaps should not be used over 250km/h(155mph).
From this we can assume two possibilities:
1) that the 250km/h indicated speed limit was set at low altitudes, used in landings or take-offs. This would mean that despite the manual lists the limit of full flap deployment at 155mph, it should not be deployed upto those speeds when the altitude was high, since 155mph would not be what it seems.
2) Or, perhaps flaps could be used upto the indicated speeds no matter what the altitude is and how different the TAS is - since despite the TAS is higher than the IAS at high altitudes, it also means less drag due to lower resistance from air - thus, meaning secondary mechanisms such as flaps or gears still could be used as long as the pilot abided by the limitations set in IAS.
If the answer to this riddle is 2), then we've got no problems whatsoever. The higher and faster the P-38 flies, it can also use flaps at higher air speeds(TAS) also.
If the answer is 1), then it brings out complications - so, if the P-38 can indeed use combat settings upto 275mph(which I assume is IAS), then at what altitudes is this 275mph limit measured?
Clearly if 1) is what really happens, then it doesn't make sense that the flaps retract at 250mph IAS/250mph TAS at lower altitudes, but does not at 250mph IAS/300mph TAS at higher altitudes. So if this is the case, the flap retraction then should be modelled upon TAS values rather than IAS - which will either enhance P-38 flap efficiency or hurt it even more, according to which TAS value HTC chooses to model it with.
At any rate, the above is a theoretically possible agenda if the flaps should be modelled in a different manner.
The other points still stand valid;
a) it is but a consequence of their own actions if the flaps start retracting
b) if any change is to be made, it should be to all planes
c) of the current restrictions implemented are lifted, this games gonna get more gamey than ever
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
No i would rather have them to had left some 47 models and make some more P38's
Stupid question
I never said I don't want a better simulation. I'd love to have better flap modelling! and I won't tell you not to ask for it.
what I said was that I prefered to get other things from HTC before they work on the flaps thing. You may ask for the opposite. Just like those guys asking for a B29. I can think of 20 planes I'd rather see added before the 29 - but that's my opinion.
that's how stupid question it is.
Murdr:
What part of the 38 flaps being specifically designed for combat usage didnt you understand?
What does it matter what was it "designed for", if realizm is what you are after? If you want something simulated more accuratly ask for it because it worked. Don't go into the designers mind, it's irrelevant.
Bozon
-
Kweassa: I dunno if I understand what you're meaning to say, but TAS shouldn't be of concern since flaps are meant to work with air the same way wings make lift and drag etc.
If at 30k you're showing a certain IAS, then that is what the flaps and wings etc are effectively dealing with, that's the physical pressure they are subject to, regardless of TAS.
i.e. you don't need wings nor would worry about them braking off from structural damage by overspeed in outerspace.
Another point, there wouldn't be the squirley changes of lift if the FM made flap lift match their angle rather than equal to their notch position, whole numbers only.
When you drive racing sims, the tire grip is continuous and gradual, not a square function where you go from full grip to total wheelspin instantly.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
If that be the case then the discrepancy of IAS and TAS according to flight alititude fuels even more confusion to this issue - as the alt I've tested gave out more than 300mph TAS while the IAS indicated merely 250mph, as compared to the lower altitudes where 250mph IAS remains around 250~260mph TAS.
Kweassa, probably the easiest way to see the relationship between IAS and TAS is to think of IAS as the force the air excerts on the aircraft and TAS as the speed over distance in a given airmass. As you get higher in altitude, the density of the air decreases - there's less of it in any given unit measure, so the higher you fly, the faster you are actually traveling for any given indicated airspeed. TAS = how fast you're travelling over a given unit measure of air space; IAS = how much force is being exerted on your airplane.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
-
a) it is but a consequence of their own actions if the flaps start retracting
instead of retracting, it should break.
b) if any change is to be made, it should be to all planes
dont think anyone is disagreeing with you.
c) of the current restrictions implemented are lifted, this games gonna get more gamey than ever
its "gamey" now, we want "realism"
my .02 to what this thread seems about.
~S~
-
Killnu
its "gamey" now, we want "realism"
You fail to understand the whole point of this. Sometimes, gamey, simplified implementations actually enhance realism. Other times, carefully designed, realistically implemented systems just make the game more dweebier than it should be because the obvious differences in real life and game environment enable game pilots to abuse all kinds of piece of reality there is.
Go take a look on what HT wrote down about combat trim and the standards on how he chose to model elevator deflection values - it's in the HTC home page.
If HT modelled the stick responses "realistically", a Spitfire would stall before we pulled half-way through the stick. However, he chose not to, because the overall realistic feel is more important than "implementing the exact way it was in real life".
How many of you have flied extended periods in IL-2/FB? I've been playing it side-by-side with AH ever since the first series came out. I played FB and AEP for a serious length of time waiting for AH2 to come out in the last 6 months.
Any of you realize how gamey and dweebish the air-to-air combat is there? Some parts are excellent, others concerned with low-speed fights and flap management, overshoots are plain unrealistic.
What's the first reaction a pilot would do when he senses his speeding plane might face the danger of being overshot?
In AH, we extend our flight paths, manage a different method of approach, carefully decide on whether or not to apply full rudder to skid and blow-E. And only after then, when we successfully take steps to bring the plane down to speeds where flap use was sanctioned via pilots manuals, are we able to start use flaps and manage it carefully to retain that state.
In FB/AEP, people mandatorily just stick out full flaps and pull out gears. Oh some planes can do that in AH too, like the F4U. But in AH, the F4U is the only plane that can do that. It is its special trait. Not in FB/AEP. Everybody does that.
In AH, the difference in speeds where flaps can be applied, and the limitations where it chooses to auto-retract, forces us to micro-manage our plane carefully. All planes feel different in their characteristics because of that. When we choose to use flaps in a non-US plane, it means we're going into extreme low speeds and flap management must be done carefully.
There's no such thing as difference in low-speed stability between planes in FB/AEP, and all the planes basically fly and feel the same - it's super easy to flop around and hover like a fish. Everybody can just pop full flaps out under a certain generic limit, and as a result the importance of actual ACM is largely lost than compared to AH. The only thing which makes FB/AEP still interesting in maneuvering contests, is that the gunnery was so harder than AH1. Now that AH2 is more or less simular, AH2 wins hands-down in the intensity and suspense of putting your plane through low-speed fights.
As I said, FB/AEP models the flaps in exactly the way you guys request it. I guarantee within 6 months of such change you guys will be complaining, "gee, it's not what I thought it would be at all.."
moot, detch
That's good - it confirms theory 2). In that case then all's fine. Then the problem is narrowed down to this;
Three solutions:
Solution1
1) select an arbitrary "break zone" above the set flap speeds, which is as much as unrealistic as it is now
2) set all plane flaps to act in such manner so they may comfortably deployed above listed speeds(hey personally, I'd love to be able to pop flaps in my 109 at 300mph)
3) and sit back and watch everybody in everyplane mandatorily start pulling flaps out the moment they have to enter maneuvering
Solution2
1) make HTC research and implement a careful physics model that would calculate all sorts of drag forces and stress on a plane
2) set all plane flaps to react to such elaborate physics model
3) and sit back and watch everybody in everyplane mandatorily start pulling flaps out the moment they have to enter maneuvering
Solution3
1) leave it the way it was
2) let people be able to engage flaps in only limited situations so that the planes that were able to engage them above landing speeds retain their special advantage to do so, and largely keep the "flap" factor low in profile as a decisve factor in normal combat for the rest of the planes.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Murdr:
What does it matter what was it "designed for", if realizm is what you are after? If you want something simulated more accuratly ask for it because it worked. Don't go into the designers mind, it's irrelevant.
Spent 2 post talking about how it was used, and I was not the only one. Too bad you missed it.
The problem that causes the complaint in the first place (and I will explain it in red so it is loud and clear) are the auto-retractions at 150 and less so at 200. Going 100 in a flat turn into a split-s to a high yo-yo with max controlable elevator can easily bring the airspeed at or above 150 at the low point of the split-s VERY BREIFLY. This is not an uncommon manover series when on someones 6.
You can pull a series of constantly tight turning manovers and brush these thresholds. Note I said constantly tight turning. I dont think any experienced 38 enthusiast here is expecting to be able to dive and manover any amount of time with full flaps and not have adverse concequences. That isnt what Im describing, all it takes is an attempted 180 degree turn too far below the horizon to turn a winning 38 into a spinning 38. The fact that the peak speed while doing that is near the recomended max deployment speed and under an overspeed stressing condition is exactly why these guys want them to break at a realistic speed rather than retract at a recommended speed.
But no, the same people who cry give me realism, are insulted that one plane would be able to use its real life advantages to the extent of its envelope, as it would be unfair to their non-twin engine, non-counter-rotating prop plane that either does its best above flap speed, or is too nimble to be overly concerned with flap usage. And its too much trouble to apply to every plane, so there you have it. Mumbling and complaining about it isnt going to change anything, but if your contention is that there isnt a valid complaint, then IMO you dont know what your talking about.
-
all it takes is an attempted 180 degree turn too far below the horizon to turn a winning 38 into a spinning 38.
It's no different from other planes stalling out as soon as surpass their physical limits in the form of peak AoA.
In the case of the P-38, the only thing that held the P-38 together was the flaps. If you cross the speed and the flaps retract you've failed in managing your plane at that speed.
So why pull so hard? You could always ease the stick a bit, stable the plane, and then pull again and deploy flaps again.
Ah, but the P-38 pilots will say "then I'm gonna be outmaneuvered!".
Exactly, mate. They've made the mistake of trying to turn too hard too slow against a plane which they thought they'd be able to out-maneuver. This has less to do with their concerns in 'realism' and more to do with blaming the system for their own failures. The P-38 is a massive plane, larger and heavier than the P-47D. Evaluations from America's Hundred Thousand claims its turning ability to be on par with the P-47.
Despite that fact, more often than not we see the expert pilots claiming they could stall fight much more nimbler planes in it. They are famed memebers of the community renowned in their expertise of handling the P-38 against much more nimbler fors. Does the fact that such a massive plane can still compete with much more agile planes in their own game, not prove that the P-38 is already incredibly efficient in maneuvering as it is?
Don't play the martyr and describe as if the P-38 is deprived of its potency. It is already a potent and energetic plane benefiting from the current system more than any other plane.
It was a 'winning P-38' turned to a 'spinning P-38'? Big deal. Same thing happens to every fighter everyday.
The fact that the peak speed while doing that is near the recomended max deployment speed and under an overspeed stressing condition is exactly why these guys want them to break at a realistic speed rather than retract at a recommended speed.
Except nobody knows for a fact at just exactly which speeds are 'overspeed' and which not. Nevertheless they still want the flaps to hold together above listed speeds.
So, just how exactly is anyone gonna be able to model that? Model an arbitrary '100mph higher' limit as suggested by Tac? That's more 'realistic'? Sounds more like an arbitrary enhancement for their own benefit to me.
Some people like Mguire might actually have freely used flaps at all kinds of speeds(although I've never seen any evidence of such so far).
But do you really think a typical WW2 pilot would go, "hmm, the speed is 300mph indicated. My pilots manuals says it should be deployed only under 250.... heck, no big deal. My plane can take that... " and merrily start deploying flaps?
Remember its real life we're talking about here. Having a gear, flap, aileron shot off in AH means not much. Belly landings are a piece of cake. However in real life a 'simple' malfunction in such flight devices can mean life or death.
No pilot in their right minds would just simply walk over the line and go deaf ears over what the makers of the plane have recommended.
Let's say the flaps of the P-38 are indeed modelled, to withstand something like 50mph IAS higher than it should.
Then, in this game we play, effectively that renders the pilot manual and its suggested characteristics of the plane completely useless. In every practical way the limits are not 250mph. The limits become 300mph by all means, and that becomes the new commanding rule.
Now, in our game, we have all pilots of all planes pulling out flaps at much higher speeds than suggested everyday. So is that more 'realistic'?
In the technical perspective perhaps. In the 'feel' as HT has once described, it becomes a dweeb game.
but no, the same people who cry give me realism, are insulted that one plane would be able to use its real life advantages to the extent of its envelope, as it would be unfair to their non-twin engine, non-counter-rotating prop plane that either does its best above flap speed, or is too nimble to be overly concerned with flap usage.
"Insulted" my hairy prettythang.
If the real life advantages of the P-38 wasn't implemented in the AH in a reasonable manner, a fat ol' large target with unimpressive deck speed and average turn like the P-38 won't have a snowball's chance in hell against even the most clumsiest of 109s.
So what the heck is the 'extent of the envelope', huh?
The truth is that you don't know just where that extent lies, do you?
Just how much is this extent? How do we model that? Do we model random failures based on increased chance according to the magnitude of how much the flaps have surpassed its limit? Do we model an arbitrary number upto which it can stand?
You want it realistic, then I suggest we model it the random way. That'd be the most realistic way, won't it?
Real life flap deployment over listed speeds is basically 'run-at-your-own-risk'. Real life pilots may choose to take their chance and push it over the listed speed, but typically they'd rather not choose to do so, because the uncertainty of just exactly what would happen, and at which speed it will happen, is a frightening risk they have to face.
After all, so many variables are in work when it comes to mechanical failures vs force of nature. So the realistic way to make it would be to model the flaps to fail randomly.
If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times. If your lucky, your flap may even hold upto 400mph IAS. If your really unlucky, it may jam the moment that it crosses over the line.
If its modelled that way, then I'd have no reason to oppose it.
And its too much trouble to apply to every plane, so there you have it. Mumbling and complaining about it isnt going to change anything, but if your contention is that there isnt a valid complaint, then IMO you dont know what your talking about.
And laying grounds for mechanical limitations on some fantasy limit number conjured up is 'knowing what you're talking about'?
I think not.
-
"No pilot in their right minds would just simply walk over the line and go deaf ears over what the makers of the plane have recommended. "
Actually P-38 pilots did exactly that with regards to engine cruise settings in order to extract maximum range. The figures in the manual were too conservative and the plane could take the abuse with no adverse effects.
"If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times. If your lucky, your flap may even hold upto 400mph IAS. If your really unlucky, it may jam the moment that it crosses over the line. "
I am willing to bet that most other people would prefer this system too, as it would solve the problem of autoretracting if you brush the set speed, with--in that situation--minimal chance of failure. Add in some "flap stressing sound" when you exceed safe speed and you have a recipie for perfection.
I, for one, would view it as an improvement. Leave autoretract as an option and everyone would be happy.
J_A_B
-
As far as I know:
Three notches flaps up to 250 IAS, four up to 200 IAS, five up to 150 IAS.
Now, I don't mind autoretraction, but those numbers seem too cute and arbitrary to be really valid. I'd at least like to see the autoretract point be a little faster than the allowable extension point at lower speeds.
What I mean is, if you're allowed to extend to the fifth notch of flaps at 150 IAS, make the autoretract occur at 175 IAS. 225 IAS for the fourth notch, and the other three can still autoretract at 250.
Or perhaps a delay of a few seconds after crossing into the autoretract zone before the flaps actually retract? These things had tolerances beyond specification, and breakage is not instantaneous. For the flaps to break, they would have to be over a certain level of stress for a certain continous period of time, enough for some critical plastic deformation of the metal to occur. They would be able to withstand high stress for very short durations.
I would request something like this simply because it's annoying to have the flaps autoretract (or break, as it is in FB/AEP) instantaneously once you cross a certain threshold, without any prior indications, even if you're only over that speed threshold very slightly and only for a second or two, as you might be when coming through the bottom end of a loop before zooming back up again.
-
another I/O modeling example: wait till you're a foot or two from touching down, and pop out the gears... the plane pops up from gears instantly moving to full-out position.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's no different from other planes stalling out as soon as surpass their physical limits in the form of peak AoA.
In the case of the P-38, the only thing that held the P-38 together was the flaps....
If the flaps push over only 1~10 mph above listed speed, then it has a very high chance of holding together. As the speed grows, at some point it will randomly jam. Now that's fair and realistic - it relies completely on shaped chance, and the uncertainty of just when the doom will come will influence people to try to abide by the limit at all times.
Ok, we are on the same page now. I just wanted to make sure you understood that the issue is more about a brief few mph during common acm, than it was about intentional gamey overshoot manovers.
Your example, I think is the kind of rules that would be prefered by some in this thread. While riding the edge of stall lagging 10 degrees from a firing solution on an enemy, which knowlege would I prefer? When he starts an underloop, I will lose him in my fwd+up at the bottom due to autoflap managment? Or I will have a firing solution on the other vertical end, as long as the flaps arnt overstressed by that 5-10MPH at the bottom apex? When put that way, Id prefer the latter since you presented the frame work of the scenerio.
That puts it at the discression of the pilot to consider a slight brief risk balanced with the external risks. The pilot is able to consider his alt, entery speed, estimate the probable top speed and make a judgment, as opposed to an artifical barrier removing the choice.
In the absence of a NACA study, having that choice sounds better than the current mandatory system.
-
Summed up
The reason for all this confusions is that there are multiple issues at work here.
1) Whether or not the flaps should automatically retract when it crosses over the restrictions set in the pilots manuals
2) If it is to become full manual controlled, where should the 'restriction' point lie at
3) What kind of 'punishment' should be dealt out when that restriction is broken
4) How will we be able to keep people from abusing the newfound leniency in comabt? If people make full use of such leniency all the time, is it more 'realistic'?
....
Now in case of 1), I don't object to that by itself. Actually, I'd also prefer the flaps be fully manual controlled.
However, 1) is not an isolated issue in this matter, as it effects all sorts of other things which may in turn, make the game worse, which I've again and again tried to explain with examples. It is definately not "if its historic, we should have it the way it was, it's simple as that".
The largest of problems are as described in 2), 3), and 4).
Where do we set the restriction line?
At the speeds suggested by the pilots manual? Grant an arbitrary margin of safe-zone? Or, randomize it and don't specify the restriction line in numbers?
The reason 2) is so important is, points 3) and 4) are so very closely dependant on the outcome of 2) - especially 4).
Point 3) is a relatively simple choice considering the other decisions which have to be made. It's either auto-retract or be damaged. But since people hate auto-retraction, and want manual control over their flaps, the natural choice we're compelled to make is to make let it be damaged.
But if the flaps are damaged the moment they overspeed(overspeed is defined in this instance, as any speed over the speed restriction set by official manulas), then the current restriction set on official numbers make the P-38, and a whole load of other planes even worse then they are. The moment it reaches the IAS limit, it will get jammed, instead of retracting.
So, that defines our choice of 2) to either; a) grant an arbitrary margin of safe-zone or, b) randomize it.
However, granting an artificial, arbitrary margin has serious effects in the style of combat for all planes, and that's what I was so desperately trying to explain with all the comparisons and examples.
JAB has pointed out that the pilots regularly crossed over the line with engines, but engines are a different issue. The restrictions in engine settings were mostly set in regards to overhaul times. Many engines were put through extended lengths of run time at high RPMs to be tested, and both the pilots and mechanics knew that fact.
Not to mention the fact, that the information on the status of the engine was constantly updated to the pilot via various guages, and the consequences of misuse resulted in overheating, which the pilot can simply compensate by lowering the throttle and RPM, which from that point the engine will cool down again.
Flaps are a different issue. There is no warning sign. You have no idea on what's gonna happen when.
The equivalent of such thing happening to the engine would be a spontaenous explosion or seizure, in a plane that has no temperature guages. If the engine has a chance of suddenly exploding if it was pushed over the factory limits, then I'll bet nobody would be so eager to try their luck out, especially during combat.
Because there is no guage or a tell-tale warning sign, like I said, pushing flight controls over suggested limits is a 'run-at-your-own-risk' game. Surely the pilots manuals would have listed a modest, conservative value, but nobody knew for sure how and where it was gonna break.
The problem with 4) is that if people start using flaps over the limitations set by the book, then virtually the game loses its grip on the representation of reality.
A simulation depicts and recreates reality in a virtual world, but that does not mean everything is depicted in every way.
A simulation, should concentrate on depicting the most represantative, typical, and normal instances of reality.
If some piece of abnormal 'reality'( such as rare cases, freak accidents, possible but unlikely outcomes, things only experts can do and etc etc..) is allowed into a simulation without any of its real-life factors which worked to keep those things constrained, then in a game, people start abusing them.
Ironically, what started out as modelling in a relatively much more realistic system, brings out the result of people doing all of the unlikely and unthinkable things on a regular basis, which makes the game unrealistic as a whole. That's what I was trying to explain by comparing IL2/FB and AH!
That's why I was defending the current system. It's unrealistic. I personally don't like it very much. But even when points 1), 2), and 3) are resolved, there is always 4) which we must never forget.
The system of flap management you guys are asking, is already in use in many other sims and tested thoroughly. Was a flap combat device? For only some planes. What do we see in those other sims? We see everybody using flaps as a SOP in maneuvering.
Here's an example in what typically happens:
A Bf109G meets a P-38L. Both planes aren't too fast when they meet. They approach each other face to face, and soon enter the merge phase, and then go into a one-circle fight initially starting out at about 300mph IAS.
Now, what happens in reality? The 109 pilot will chop some throttle, try to turn into the P-38L. The P-38L will try the same. At some point, when the speed reaches lower than 250~260mph IAS, the P-38 pilots will engage his Fowlers into combat settings, tightening his turn radius. The 109 pilot tries to chop his throttle also, but sees the enemy slowly advancing to his six. After a few more turns the P-38 gets behind the 109's six, and in desperation, the Bf109 pilot will then try everything he thinks is possible, including full flaps.
Why didn't he just use flaps out earlier at the first turn? Because, he wasn't supposed to do that at those speeds.
Now, what happens in AH? The basically the same thing as in the real instance. In reality, not using flaps at those speeds was of choice(and a likely one, too). In AH, it is enforced artificially - only when the speed gets really low, the 109 can start to pop flaps in desperation, attempting on overshoot.
Gamey? Unrealistic? Limiting pilot choices? Yes, it is. But look at the end result, compare it to what you might see in IL2/FB, or any kind of game that sets flaps in the way requested. The 109 pilot will immediately engage flaps at the first merge. Any Spit or Niki a P-38L pilot would want to overshoot, would just pop full flaps out and pull angles the P-38 can never escape from.
The P-38 can use flaps, so can the other planes. No way a lumbering behemoth like the P-38L ever gonna win against Spitfire now.
Try the same scenario with the P-47, or practically any of the US planes. In real life, or in AH, a US plane might have a good chance in a high-speed scissoring/turn fight against a more nimbler one, and ultmately even out maneuver it.
What happens in a game with flaps like IL2/FB? The US plane gets saddled up at the first turn. So the P-47 or the P-51 can turn faster at high speeds? They can use combat flaps upto 400mph?
Big deal. Sooner or later the speed will have to drop down to 300s, and then all the opponents will also push 1~2 notches out and turn inside the US plane.
..........
The key issue here, is actually not about retraction. It's about how we're supposed to deal with the consequences that are to come when auto-retraction is gone and a higher safety 'margin' than real numbers, is set.
Thus, I'd agree in such a request only if no margin or safezone is ever specified, and a random chance for the flaps to be damaged over listed speeds, is implemented. IMO that's the only way to stop the auto-retraction problem concerned with maneuvering, but still set a regulating 'terror factor' high enough, to convince pilots to voluntarily stay under the limits.
If you guys can successfully come up with some fair, but reasonable means to stop such unrealistic exploiting when the suggested manual control over flaps are implemented, then I'm all ears mates.
-
I dont think that anyone has a problem with the deployment speeds and being unable to deploy them above that speed should not change. Your example of a damage probability curve sounds reasonable to me. For instance.
Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5............... .25%
2%..............................153.................. .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%
I would think that a higher the rate of deployment speed would be more likely to be over that deployment speed for a longer time span. So if the die rolled twice per second for random damage, there would be more die rolls at a +200mph situation than there would at a +150mph, and so on. How would something like that suit you?
-
Sounds reasonable, Murdr.
The 'terror factor' seems adequately high enough to stop people from attempting to pop flap-stuff at 300mph, but the margin of reasonable chance of safety, seems also good enough, so that people don't have to fear the flaps retracting the moment it hits a certain number.
If something like that is indeed what P-38 pilots want, then, I support it.
-
kweassa, you keep blaming the pilot for an error caused by a feature that was not in the real P-38. Why?
The P-51 flaps DID retract on their own at high speeds. So did the P-47's as far as im aware. Why? They blew up from the wind force. The P-38's did NOT. And as far as I know so did the LW planes, so did every other plane that did not use Fowler flaps.
The 38 is the only plane that has those special flaps...and its the only one that RELIES on them in combat. You keep reffering to pilot mistakes... then why do you keep comparing a P-51 or a P-47 or a 109G+ to the P-38 in TURNFIGHTING? A pilot in those other planes entering a turnfight have already done a HUGE mistake. Because those planes are B&Z planes. A 38 is NOT a B&Z aircraft, its both B&Z and T&B ...thanks to its unique characteristics. And the autoretract feature hurts the T&B ability of the 38 a LOT.
I proposed the 100mph above current retract setting because it DOES bring the 38 closer to real life performance. Read again: RETRACT SETTINGS. The P-38L series DID have a LOCK to prevent DEPLOYMENT of flaps above X speeds, so if HTC models it right, you wont see 38 jockeys pulling out full flaps at 200mph to abuse it.. they wont be able to. BUT if they have them all deployed at 100mph and split-S, the flaps will stay deployed up to 200mph, but the screen shaking REAL bad past 100mph and finally retracting at 200mph.
So you claiming a 'feature' that was NOT in the real P-38 be left in place because you think it would give the AH P-38 an 'unfair' advantage over planes that DID have a 'retract' 'feature' in real life?
Man, i cant wait to see what you will say about the 38's dive flaps if they ever fix them too! (FYI the should pull the 38's nose up at a steady 3G's when deployed past 350mph, and prevent the 'tuck under' effect when deployed before 250mph...so far the AH dive flaps only prevent the tuck under effect).
-
Because you're dumping the blame on the system for the failures you've met when trying to turnfight better turnfighters in a P-38, which is in no way suited for such a fight.
The beneficial traits of neutralized torque, nice wing/power loading, and Fowler type flaps gives the P-38L the OPTION to combat more nimble enemy fighters in their own game, more or less for a limited duration, which often may prove enough to take them down before the limits are met.
However, once it is met, there's nothing about the P-38 which can be seen as beneficial for turnfighting better turning planes - it's a lumbering behemoth, practically the heaviest and largest fighter of WW2, with limited turn radius and rate, and unimpressive rolls at low speed.
The flaps retracting simply means it met the limit before it could shoot the enemy down, and it is in no way different from other fighters doing the same in their own instances. The regime effects all planes in the same manner, and implying that the P-38 is the only special plane which solely depends on the flaps, which should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability, and it should be the only one receiving a change, is sheer folly.
All pilots of all planes who know how to push their plane up to their limits, at least, as suggested by the rules set in AH, use flaps during low-speed maneuvering. None of them complain when they've failed to do so and it retracts.
So on grounds set by the above discussion, especially with Murdr, setting the flaps to withstand a certain amount of excess speed should be reasonable, and I'd support that if that's the way it is implemented, for all planes.
But the grounds your argument is on, and the method you suggest, is neither logical nor acceptable. Your argument is simply based on a fact that you've failed to kill a certain plane in certain instances, because the flap system unjustly persecutes the P-38.
Wrong.
The system limits and persecutes all pilots of all planes who would be willing to use the flaps to their advantage during combat, whether or not the "name" of the setting is "combat" is totally irrelevant of this matter, and much less any basis of an argument which implies the P-38 is the only plane that relies so heavily on flaps.
All pilots who would use the flaps ultimately wish to achieve the same thing the P-38 pilot wants. All pilots of all planes face the same consequences when they have failed.
If a 109 which first notch of flaps are limited to about 150~160mph IAS, can maintain it upto 200mph in AH, while the P-38 is historically limited, then that would be "unfair and disadvantaged".
But both planes are limited by the "book" in AH, and ultimately face the same dangerous results when the pilot makes a mistake. That's not "unfair and disadvantaged".
Don't try to confuse the facts of historicity and preference. As far as limitations go and how it is set up by AH, all planes are fair.
Nobody forced you to fly the P-38 in that manner only, and certainly nobody forced you to try a potentially dangerous nose-down overshoot attempt with flaps out while fighting planes that can fly slower and still maneuver better.
The P-38 doesn't "rely" on anything. It's just a plane with bunch of characteristics beneficial with for one thing, and harmful for the other, like ALL planes. It is the pilot, you, and your style of fighting which '"relies" on the flaps. And ultimately all consequences following it, is the responsibility of the pilot and his fighting style, not the system. If you've failed to do something in AH, no matter what the history suggests, or what you think your own favorite plane should be capable of doing, then its your fault.
I can always quote simular usage of flaps from the Luftwaffe pilots fighting Spitfires and Hurricanes and LaGGs. Like I said before Nowotny habitually made use of flaps during combat in the same purpose as you would, and Marseilles was also famous for all kinds of innovative methods of maneuvering.
So these 190s and 109s didn't have 'combat' settings? Don't be deluded by the word 'combat setting' - there's nothing special about combat setting. It's just a name made up for a certain level of flap deployment. The P-38s have fowlers? P-51s and P-47s had spit flaps, and still had "combat" settings.
Whether or not a flap can be used in combat, or can be utilized with efficiency, is upto the situation and the pilot, and having a different type of flap named in different type of setting is utterly irrelvant in determining whether a certain plane is 'flap dependant'. Fowler flaps, in full deployment or combat settings, is just simply another type of flap. It's not a magic gadget which the P-38 has to use, or else it would always be shot down.
If AH has set it in a certain way, then you adapt to that. All pilots using all planes adapt to that. All of them are limited by the book. If you have to push your plane to a situation which might overspeed above the set limit, then perhaps next time, you should not do so. I know I don't with my 109, why should you?
Oh, I've also had those moments in a dilly-dally combat against a P-51 in a Bf109G-10. I've been outturned by them because the moment it hits a certain number the flap retracted. Who cares if its not "named" combat flap? Being a split-flap doesn't mean it should retract the moment it hits over a certain number, does it? I mean, the P-51 and the G-10 is so close a contest in low-speed duel, that I would really love to "rely" on my flaps to hold for just a second longer so I don't lose the edge.
But If I fail in it, I fail in it. It's my fault. How's that the system's fault when everybody has their own moments in an equal manner? If I had known that the P-51 pilot would so skillfully make use of his advantage with flaps, I shouldn't have fought in him in that manner, should I?
So it's my fault. My own fault, and no one else's. I'd love to see the flaps hold, but that's irrelvant as the fight goes. I ain't gonna think "lucky you, P-51 pilot, because my flaps were unhistorically retracted the moment it hits the line.. and that's the only reason you won". No, the reason I died was not because of the flaps.
Perhaps its time to stop thinking the P-38 is such as 'special' plane. As it is, the only thing its special is that its pilots are the only ones blaming the system for their own failures.
Don't confuse the two. If we're asking for flap retractment to be removed for a historic reason, then thats that.
It's not the same thing as asking it to be removed, thinking that its the only reason you've failed to achieve a certain result you thought you easily would. And especially, a special 'waiver' requested is out of the question.
-
I have preferred that flaps get stuck or damaged. The auto retraction concept never has "felt right", but it isn't a deal breaker.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
... 1 notch away from being full flaps.
and doesn't retain energy.. go figure :rolleyes:
-
Oh, almost forgot with the thread hijacking and all. Day 2 of AH2, landed 8, day 3 landed 10...what were those problems again :)
-
" Oh, I've also had those moments in a dilly-dally combat against a P-51 in a Bf109G-10. I've been outturned by them because the moment it hits a certain number the flap retracted. Who cares if its not "named" combat flap? Being a split-flap doesn't mean it should retract the moment it hits over a certain number, does it? I mean, the P-51 and the G-10 is so close a contest in low-speed duel, that I would really love to "rely" on my flaps to hold for just a second longer so I don't lose the edge.
But If I fail in it, I fail in it. It's my fault. How's that the system's fault when everybody has their own moments in an equal manner? If I had known that the P-51 pilot would so skillfully make use of his advantage with flaps, I shouldn't have fought in him in that manner, should I? "
Wrong. And this is what im trying to get through to you. In your case the P51 and the 109g10, historically DID have their flaps blown up by the windforce if they got faster than what those flaps could take. So in this case, YES those planes DID have a problem in low speeds because of that. In this case, YES if your P-51/109g10 sped up beyond what its flaps could take and they retract and make you lose control then YES , YOU fuked up and losing the fight because lost angles/loss of control because your virtual p51/109g10 did what the real one would do.
A P-38L oth, did NOT have that problem. Its flaps would STAY deployed until the pilot retracted them. Lockheed put in locks to prevent the deployment of flaps at certain speeds for safety reasons (and many experienced 38 jocks had their mechanics remove the locks in the field..but this game goes by factory settings anyway)... but the P-38 did NOT retract its flaps because they were blown up by windforce.
So if my 38 was going against your P-51 and MY flaps autorectract just because they hit the speed mark to retract for a split second while im doing a 7g manouver nose below horizon (aka speed wouldve bled back to under 100mph half a second after tickmark hits the retract speed).. and make me spin and give you the fight... tell me, did you win because you 'flew' your plane better? Or because I flew my plane 'badly' ?
Or maybe you won because my plane did something the real one would never do?
And yes, the 38 IS special because in the entire planeset (as far as im aware..fighters at least) its the ONLY one that has fowler flaps. Its also the ONLY fighter that relies in flaps for combat. Please do NOT compare the P-51 or 109 or any other plane with the 38, which HAS to deploy flaps when under 250mph to be able to turn with the worst turner in the game.
"implying that the P-38 is the only special plane which solely depends on the flaps, which should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability, and it should be the only one receiving a change, is sheer folly"
dont put words in my mouth. I never said or claimed that "should make it able to combat equally against any nimbler plane clearly superior to the P-38 in low speed maneuverability".
the 100mph retract speed mark increase for the 38 will never make it turn with or turn better than the planes that right now out-turn it. You wont see a 38 with 3/4ths of its flaps down turning at 250mph with a spit or a zero..simply because the spit/zero/planes that already out-turn the 38 have a dramatically better turn rate at slower speeds.
What it WILL do is stop the 38 from losing turning fights against planes that it DID out-turn at slow speed because the flaps will NOT retract and make them lose the fight. A 109g10 is dead meat against a 38 in turning fights under 250mph.. but in this game the g10 can and does win by making the 38 ride the retract speeds by doing below-horizon evasives, see the 38 behind him spin all the sudden and voila! Wins by a huge mistake in the 38's coding. And believe me, I know how to and can and have done this when flying other planes vs the 38..and practically every time it works to let me get away or get on the 38's 6 as its pilot is too busy regaining control of a plane that did what it should not have done.
Gaming the game or realistic gameplay..which is what you want kweassa?
" If a 109 which first notch of flaps are limited to about 150~160mph IAS, can maintain it upto 200mph in AH, while the P-38 is historically limited, then that would be "unfair and disadvantaged".
But both planes are limited by the "book" in AH, and ultimately face the same dangerous results when the pilot makes a mistake. That's not "unfair and disadvantaged".
Don't try to confuse the facts of historicity and preference. As far as limitations go and how it is set up by AH, all planes are fair. "
Another great example. the 109's flaps DID HISTORICALLY blow up from windforce. The 38's did NOT. The BOOK in this case is thrown at the 38 making it do something it did NOT in real life. It penalizes the P-38 in AH.
Yet both planes are subject to 'the book' as you call it and autoretract. Please, tell me THAT is not 'unfair and disadvantaged'. I would LOVE to hear your rationalization of this.
I will not accept one plane's limits to be imposed on another plane which did NOT have such limitations.
-
I disagree on the reasoning. As I eluded to before, the 38 has an E cap. Partially from compressibility issues, and partially from drag. The La's 109s and 51's can out E the 38 on a dead run, even when the 38 may have had more E to start with. If you dive a 38 10K to the deck, you can get around 500, but after leveling it will bleed down to its normal max speed. No different than any other plane, but these factors make it more likely for the 38 to be put into a position of having to use flaps.
Given the population of the above mentioned planes, I dont think its valid to blame every low speed situation on the pilot. I have a film of myself RTBing in a shallow decent from 12K over 15 miles. 1K off the deck a la7 tries to HO, reverses, and runs me down in 15 seconds. From the film data from his slow point of 279 while reversing, he accellerated to 388 in 12 seconds. Like I said, I had been decending, and had done no manovering the entire time. Is that the limitations of the 38? Yes. Is the limitation the fault of the pilot? No not in that situation, I had already done the maximum that could be done to economise E.
Wanted to touch on the flaps, but gotta get back to work, mabey later.
-
OIO: You are not making a case for auto v manual retract: You are simply stating that you belive the max flap speed for the 38 is incorect.
HiTech
-
...continued...
The point I am trying to get at, for the benefit of those who dont often fly the 38 is: The characteristics I described lead to the 38 being put into the situation of relying on flaps more often than average for other planes. That is, the bnz aircraft with good E managment typically arnt forced to rely on flap usage, but its a valid option. The tnb aircraft typically have a large window of speeds where they can achieve a good turn rate without flap usage, and typically arnt forced to rely on them. Hence 38 drivers are the loudest complainers of auto-retraction.
As far as 'special' flaps, the 8deg setting for quick deployment on the 38 was innovative at the time it was added to its design. The Fowler flaps are unique in that they add area to the wing surface in addition to the airflow changes characteristic with other flap designs. Fowler flaps have a higher lift coeficent that other designs at the same degree setting. That comes at a price because it also causes more drag than other designs. The split flap design is actually more efficent when its lift coeficent to drag ratio is taken into account. At the very least they are unique, and I would believe, a good choice for such a heavy fighter. Not trying to make a point with that, just adding to a sub-plot that has been tossed around here.
Not much else to add. Cases have already been stated. I think an idea with potential has already been floated for opting out of auto-retraction. One can always hope :)
-
Neg hitech. Im stating the real P-38L did not have its flaps retracted by force of wind (which is what the current system simulates for all purposes imo). To my knowledge all other fighters and planes in the set did. Not the 38L.
With that in mind, why does this feature affect the P-38 in the same way it affects all other planes when the real 38L did not have such issues ? The answer imo, is because its just one plane out of dozens and not worth the effort to make a system to jam/rip off the flaps of just the P38.
So instead of asking you for a separate system for just the P-38, which im pretty sure you'll reject, I ask to merely adjust the 38's retract speed limit on the current system so that it does not penalize the airplane for merely touching the retract mark and spinning out of control on its own...something which other airplanes in the set would suffer from in real life but not the 38. Less work and same result imo.
+100mph to current retract settings would more closely resemble what ive read about the 38's using flaps in combat. That is my opinion. If you would like a number from a much more informed source you can always consult with Widewing on this issue... he's waay more qualified than any of us on this hehe :)
-
Your first statment is incorect OIO: I'm Not sure if any planes had had auto retracting flaps. But Im fairly sure almost all did not.
So don't mix the 2 things in your argument, one is the max speed flap speed.
2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed.
3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract.
Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps?
HiTech
-
N1K2-J according to the guys in the sister thread in gp/fb
For those who request non-autoretracting flaps... (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120802)
-
"Your first statment is incorect OIO: I'm Not sure if any planes had had auto retracting flaps. But Im fairly sure almost all did not."
Nor am i saying any had automatic flap retracting as a mechanical feature in the airplanes. im saying the flaps retract in the game because either the wind blew them up or because you dont want to have people flying around with full flaps out at 500mph.. i believe its both. right?
"2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed."
And the game already has the auto retract system. Which is why, again, I'd rather ask this be 'tweaked' in the 38's retract speed settings instead of asking you to make up a whole new system. The current one would work nicely if the 38's flap retract speeds were increased so that it does not penalize the plane for something that it did not suffer from.
A P51's flaps would be blown upwards by the wind if it had them all out and entered a dive down to 500mph... a P-38's would not..they would either have to be retracted by the pilot or risk structural damage or flap jamming. So instead of making a wing damage/flap jamming to be added to game, just increase the speed at which flaps retract in the 38.. anything from +50mph to +100mph from current settings would do nicely.
"3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract."
ill skip this since i think i already answered in above.
Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps?
The N1k-2 had automatic flaps. Weird butterfly flap system, though im not sure if it retracted on its own.. i think they deployed automatically. Ask widewing ;)
-
Originally posted by hitech
2nd is if all planes should have auto retractible flaps, or they should be damaged at the max flap speed.
Oops, that query doesnt allow for my engineering safty margin argument. Ive driven over 112mph on "S" rated tires...nothing happened when I hit 113mph, but in the same token I would never have felt comfortable maxing out my old 5.0 Mustang at 155mph with anything less than its "Z" rated tires.
I have seen building mechanical systems relocated even though the numbers said the structual steel would hold it because the engineer couldnt get the safty margin percentage out of the structual steel. I would expect if I had an engine rated for 6000rpms to survive if it spiked at 6001rmp. I would not expect it to hold up for a long period of time at 6500rpms though.
Is aeronautical engineering that different?
3rd if some should have auto retracts and some not auto retract.
on/off control like combat trim for those that want it.
-
Murdr i think that the autoretract is in the game so that people dont fly around with full flaps out at 400mph with no penalty. ;)
In my view the autoretract simulates the air pushing the flaps back into the wing after certain speed is reached. My argument is that the fowlers could not do this since they are set up in a foward/backward rail system, so the wind cant possibly push them back inside the wing. And in the game right now the flaps are retracting, as you say, the instant it goes from 249mph to 250mph (for example)..BAM! flap up in the middle of a high-g turning fight and fight is lost due to a spin or losing angles.
I think that perhaps it would be nice to have something that makes your plane shake violently the moment it hits the retract speed mark.. and if the plane kept the flaps down, at some point between 50mph or 100 mph above the current retract speed points in the game the flaps would get damage/jam/rip off.
But like i said, that may be a lot of work HTC may not be able to put in the game at this point. And the 38 is the one and only plane that gets royally screwed by this retract issue so just up the limits a bit on the 38 until a better system in is place.
-
It is not a simulation of a real mechanical action. Its "retract them in leiu of breaking them"
CC, its just one of those situations. HT is a pilot himself, and appearently strives for realism ballanced with playablitly.
The problem is the only hard data avalible is the maximum flap deployment speeds for the aircraft in the set. So, with that as the only hard numbers what do you do when those specifications are reached? Break them or make them retract?
After the discussion with kweassa, I say break them in a reasonable manner. Just because X deg of flaps is rated at Ymph does not mean that at Ymph+1 it will break. It could break at Y+1, but there is a better chance that it will break at Y+10, and greater the higher it goes.
If you had wind tunnel data or reports on the P38 that say the flap mechanism will fail at a certian pressure distribution load, you might have an argument. Then HTs other question would apply that should some planes have auto-retract, and some not.
Im with you on how it affects the P38, but no data, no exemption for only the 38, as I understand it.
The suggestion Id like to be considered could apply to any/all planes, could be optional, with the right numbers would act as could be expected in RL, and helps with the problem we run into with the 38.
-
Can't say I've ever had problems with auto-retracting flaps kicking the plane into an unrecoverable stall like others have. I've had them retract now and then, but nothing too severe as to decide more than one out of every 30 or so quick turnfights. I tend to be a bit more careful with throttle nose down than most players though.
I came on last night after a lengthy absence to do a bit of test driving of AH2 and to be honest, I don't mind the 38. It handled well, even though I was terribly rusty. As the night went on, I was able to get some of the snap back in the turns and pull some of the nose up maneuvers I'd used in the past. Overall, I think my Typhoon took more of a performance beating than the 38 did in the turnfighting department. Either that, or I'm even more out of practice in it than in the Lightning. I'd personally rather keep the retracting flaps than introduct damageable ones.
And also, I do some flying in the Mustang too and it requires flaps almost as much as the 38. The Jug in my experience requires them to be flown well, and even the Typhoon and the Mossie need them when speeds get extremely slow.
-
And the 38 is the one and only plane that gets royally screwed by this retract issue
Not even close. The 51's stall is much more severe than the 38's when flaps autoretract. Even then, if you're careful you can pull out of it very quickly without losing too much control. The 38 is one of the most gentle stalling planes in the game, and one of the hardest to get to do that.
-
have you tried the 38 in AH2 Manx?
PS- Good to see ya still kickin it ol tymer ;)
-
"Anyone know of any plane that had auto retracting flaps? "
-------------
The N1K2 had fully automatic flaps. They would both deploy AND retract on their own with no input from the pilot required. The N1K2's system was operated by a mercury manometer. It measured the plane's angle of attack and deployed/retracted flaps accordingly. Due to the simplicity of this system, and its effect of making the plane that much easier to fly, it wasseldom removed from operational N1K's, as best as I can tell.
Unfortunately, I have never found definitative documentation on exactly what AOA would trigger the mechanism, which would make modeling this a "best guess". Of course I am also unable to read japanese, so there's a huge amount of possible info out there which is simply unavailable to me because of the language barrier.
The F4U Corsair featured automatically retracting flaps to prevent damage if left down at high speed. This proved troublesome and was frequently removed in the field (there are many accounts of F4U's equipped with this system retracting flaps at bad times, such as on final landing approach--doubtlessly contributing to it's "ensign eliminator" reputation).
I can see why the F4U's automatic flaps system was unpopular...from full flaps they would start to blow up at only about 100 knots. Nonetheless, this system was factory equipment even on late-model Corsairs like the F4U-5.
Both of those are by-design automatic flaps, which are NOT to be confused by unintentional speed-induced blowback (damaging condition created when airspeed exceeds the hydraulic/electric system's ability to keep flaps down).
Oh, and while we're discussing flaps, the F6F should only be able to use its flaps as up or down, same as the Spitfire.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by TheManx
Not even close. The 51's stall is much more severe than the 38's when flaps autoretract.
It should! The 51 has more torque than most single engine planes. The P38 has next to no torque at all, there is no comparison between a 38 and 51 in that regard.
Originally posted by TheManx
The 38 is one of the most gentle stalling planes in the game, and one of the hardest to get to do that.
If your flaps auto-retract on you while you are in a turn in a P38, you better hope you have alt otherwise you are a dead man.
Sorry, thats not realism... thats as gamey as it gets.
-
Originally posted by TheManx
The 38 is one of the most gentle stalling planes in the game, and one of the hardest to get to do that.
Stalls and auto-flap retracting spins are two entirely different things. As Delirium said, hope you've got some air between you and the ground if you're ever thrown into a spin induced by the flaps auto-retractings.
ack-ack
-
and who said alt doesnt equal life? :D
seriously though, i almost never (want to say never, but...) have had a problem with flaps autoretracting and causing a spin, wonder if it has anything to do with the fact i fly with combat trim on all the time? any ideas, because i do not remember last spin do to flaps autoretracting on me.
~S~
-
AKAK, getting back to your observations on accellerated stall, and its possible relation to the remaining snappyness. Check out Hanger Flying Issue 2 (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/Issue2.htm) Lockheeds P38 Newsletter. It says they have no tendancy to fall off on either wing at any altitude in an accellerated stall. The newsletters contents were compiled by Lockheeds test pilots.
-
thats a cool little site there murdr.:aok
~S~
-
High speed fighters today have a high wing loading and we all know that this increases the turning radius. This condition has been improved in the 38 by the use of Maneuvering or Combat Flaps. There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.
Ray Meskimen* says: "MANEUVERING FLAPS SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLE PARTICULAR MANEUVER AND THE BE RETRACED IMMEDIATELY"
Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration.
In combat, use the 38's superior speed and climb ability to keep on top of the enemy. You all know that the 38's rate of climb is approximately the same from 140 MPH to 180 MPH. This range relieves you of keeping your eyes glued to the air speed indicator when you're trying to get up there the fastest; and the maximum of 180 MPH gives you the dual advantage of not only getting upstairs faster, but also covering more distance in the same time than your enemy whose best climbing speed may be 145 or150 MPH
==============================================
All these quotes come right out of Murdr's site.
The P38 was not a turnfighter, was an energy fighter. Read the book "Fork Tailed Devil". Good read about the Lightening. It was a fighter ahead of it's time in many ways but it's not the "end all fighter".
Popping any flap should leave a plane low and slow quickly unless it's power to weight ratio is such that it can overcome the drag. Very few WWII planes are in this catagory.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The P38 was not a turnfighter, was an energy fighter. Read the book "Fork Tailed Devil". Good read about the Lightening. It was a fighter ahead of it's time in many ways but it's not the "end all fighter".
Popping any flap should leave a plane low and slow quickly unless it's power to weight ratio is such that it can overcome the drag. Very few WWII planes are in this catagory.
Crumpp
In the PTO where it was flown as both an E fighter and a turn fighter, the P-38 excelled. If the P-38 wasn't a turn fighter, I suggest you read the AAR of the survivors of McGuire's last flight. They sure were turning with some Franks and other Japanese planes.
The flaps on the P-38 made it possible for it to turn if it got caught in such a fight and it was possible for experienced P-38 pilots to turn that thing like it was a far more nimble fighter than it was. Just look at the story of Lowell and the Spit duel where he was able to use a maneuver called the "cloverleaf" which let him use the superior stall characteristics and low/stall speed handling of the P-38 to defeat the Spitfire in a mock dogfight.
ack-ack
-
I suggest if you want the REAL story on the P-38 Lightning, you ignore Martin Caiden's "The Fork Tailed Devil" (a decent book, but rather long on opinions and short on facts) and instead read Warren Bodie's "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning". Bodie is a former Lockheed engineer (retired after about 30 years, worked for P-38 Lightning designer Clarence "Kelly" Johnson in the Skunk Works) with access to all the Lockheed data and the USAAC data. Bodie's book is a little disorganized, but it is full of facts.
-
Guess you didn't read the exerpts from the USAAF P38 magazine.
Guess the P38 didn't get withdrawn from the European Theater because the Luftwaffe single engine dayfighters could give it a rough time.
I've read Tommy Mcguires last fight. He died stalling his P38 trying to get the nose around to save his wingman. I wouldn't exactly say they were turnfighting. More like forced to take action because they got bounced.
The P38 excelled in the Pacific because it was faster than the Japanese A/C and held the intitative in a fight. In the European theater is was not faster nor as manuverable.
==============================================
RAF Enemy Test Flight evaluation-
Against the FW-190A3 vs P38F: The P38F was flown by an experienced USAAF pilot and operationally equipped.
Level speed
FW-190 was superior in speed up to 22,000 feet were the two A/C were the same.
The FW190 is 15 mph faster from sea level to 8000 feet and 5-8 mph faster until 22,000
At 23,000 feet the P38 is 6-8 mph faster than the FW-190.
Climb
The FW-190 is superior in climb up to 20,000 feet. The climb angle is the same but the FW190 climbs 20 mph faster. Above 20,000 feet the P38 outclimbs the 190 with it's climb advantage increasing with altitude. The FW190 is superior in zoom climb at all heights.
Dive
The FW-190 was superior particularly in the intial stages.
Manuverability
The FW-190 is superior to the P38F particularly in the rolling plane.
The FW190 could easily outturn the P38 in speeds above 140 mph. Once speed dropped below that the P38 gained the advantage.
Accelleration
The FW 190 was superior in all aspects.
Overall assesment:
If bounced by the FW 190 go into a diving turn. If the 190 follows try and get as slow as possible and turn.
It was thought the P38F would stand a resonable chance of shooting an FW 190 down provided the P38 had an altitude advantage and surprise.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Guess you didn't read the exerpts from the USAAF P38 magazine.
Guess the P38 didn't get withdrawn from the European Theater because the Luftwaffe single engine dayfighters could give it a rough time.
LOL! I suggest you take Savage's advice and read Bodie's book on the P-38. The P-38 was not withdrawn from the ETO because it was able to be out maneuvered by German aircraft. The reasons it was removed had more to do with insufficient pilot training and some problems with early P-38 models and 8th AAF politics. The other AAF units that flew the P-38L in the ETO/MTO until the end of the war did very well in them.
And as for McGuire's death, I suggest reading the AAR again or read the updated investigation report on Widewing's website. That's a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate description of his crash that you've detailed.
The simple fact is, the P-38 was an extremely maneuverable plane that was aided with the use of its flaps.
Also read some of the stories of the P-38 pilots that went from the PTO to the ETO. They were happy because they were finally able to fight planes that they could out maneuver and if you look at their records, pilots from the PTO that went to the ETO had a better kill ratio. Preddy is an example of this.
ack-ack
-
Guess you totally missed the USAAF evaluation.
"Might Stand a Reasonable Chance of shooting an FW-190 down IF the P38 has an ALTITUDE advantage AND SURPRISE"
Yeah OK,
The USAAF could be honest to save it's pilots lives during WWII, Why can't you be?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Guess you totally missed the USAAF evaluation.
"Might Stand a Reasonable Chance of shooting an FW-190 down IF the P38 has an ALTITUDE advantage AND SURPRISE"
Yeah OK,
The USAAF could be honest to save it's pilots lives during WWII, Why can't you be?
Crumpp
The 8th AF was totally DISHONEST about the P-38, take it from me, I have friends that were THERE in the P-38 in the 8th AF, and they know the TRUTH.
The P-38 maintain a 4-6:1 kill to loss ratio over the Luftwaffe EVERYWHERE but in the 8TH, now tell me, was it the plane or the people running the AF?
-
Owch crumpp, I was with you on your first post, until you posted again, and pulled out that synopsis on McGuire's final engagment. Compaired to its contemporaries during the span of its service, the P38 was not particularly the best at anything other than verticle manovers. In its infantcy it was so much faster than previous designs, that engineers had to figure out and deal with problems not explored before.
What it was, was utilitarian. It was an E fighter, but better E fighter designs came along. It was very much discouraged from being employed as a turn fighter, but it could in fact do it quite well when it was needed. It was employed in CAS role. It was employed as a night fighter. It was employed as a medium level bombing platform. It was employed as photo recon platform specifically because of its stability for the days photo technology.
Suggesting to this crowd to read XXXXX book on the P38 is probably not the prefered tactic, as they could probably bury you in the matierial they've already digested on the subject.
AKAK
That's a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate description of his crash that you've detailed.
That was an uncharacteristicly kind way you put that AKAK.
Oh, and thank you for citing the quote from lockheeds newsletter that supports my earlier argument. It says "There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded." Not they "will strucurally fail at 250.5MPH.
I have to stop now, because Im too busy chuckling over the fact that you report tips on flap usage and E managment to P38 fans as if it were news.
-
Let me add to my above post.
Any A/C should have it's performance envelope and unique characteristics modeled in a simulation.
IMO HTC does a pretty darn good job and when presented with varifiable facts implements changes when needed.
I agree with HTC's keeping AH from becoming an artificial "flap fest" other flight "sims" are at this time. Try flying airquake - Fighter Ace III, IL2, or Warbirds if you want that.
Sounds like their might be a problem with True Airspeed being used as the ceiling instead of IAS. If this is the case then I am sure it will be fixed.
I don't agree with modeling an A/C so that it assumes an artificial role in it's Air Force line up. The P38 was NOT the premier USAAF fighter in it's lineup and if all the flight models are correct that should be reflected.
It was the premier USAAF in the Pacific but you have to remember the Pacific Theater was a secondary priority in WWII and got the leftovers after the European Theater recieved it's needs. Consequently the P47 and P 51, which were much better suited for taking on the Luftwaffe, went to Europe with a few P38's sent initially because of their range. The P38 was more than adequete for taking on the much slower Japanese fighters.
Crumpp
-
Yeah I reported it as news because it seems to be a P38 fan club whining that my plane is not as easy to shoot down other planes with as I want it to be.
No matter you want to SPECULATE about:
The fact stands the P38 was withdrawn from European Service because the UNITS that used it said it was being roughed up by the Luftwaffe.
This is backed up by verifiable flight test data from Air Services at war trying to find the best way to defeat their enemy.
Crumpp
-
Hilts, Ack-Ack, and Murdr have all chimed in since Crumpp posted that evaluation....
And none of them pointed out that the subject of the evaluation--the P-38F--bears little in common with the P-38L we have in AH.
Man, I never thought I'd see the day when I would be sticking up for that ugly, overweight, overpriced, funny-sounding, elephantine jalopy those guys call a "fighter" :D
J_A_B
-
First off, who would be so foolish as to compare the P-38F to an FW? However, the F model saw considerable success against the Luftwaffe in the Med and North African theaters, both against the Me and FW fighters. Jack Ilfrey and Erv Ethell for example scored multiple kills in the P-38F against the Luftwaffe. Ethell scored 4 confirmed and two probable in one mission, facing 20 Me109's in ONE lone P-38. Oh, and "Tangerine" (Ethell's P-38F) did not have a single scratch from that engagement.
In Europe, with the 8th AF, the P-38F saw little if any service in combat. The first two groups, the 20th and 55th, and I know men who flew with both, were equipped with the P-38G and later H models when they went operational, 90 days ahead of schedule. The P-38F was not involved. That bogus RAF comparison was a joke to begin with.
Second, the P-38J began to reach those same units in early February, and some actually got P-38L models before transitioning to the P-51 in June and July of 1944, after the Luftwaffe had been for the most part driven from the skies. Doolittle was running the 8th AF at the time, and actually flew a P-38 when he went up in a fighter. Doolittle's reasoning was the supply problems the P-38 caused the 8th AF, and the lack of qualified P-38 rated pilots and ground crews as his reasons for replacing it. But the P-38 was in fact the fighter deployed in greatest numbers until the middle of 1944 in the 8th AF, when compared to the P-51. And the P-47 outnumbered both of them, but was too range limited to fly deep escort.
Oh, and a P-38 group flew the first fighter sweep over Berlin, a successful operation, that came about when the rest of the 8th AF turned back due to weather. LONG before any P-51 flew over Berlin.
Third, the 9th, and 13th AF's retained the P-38 much longer, and with astounding success against the same planes the 8th AF as a rule could not handle.
There were quite a few exceptions to this rule in the 8th AF, but as a rule, the 8th AF fighter wing was run very poorly, because the 8th AF was a strategic bombing based AF. Tooey Spatz, Ira Eaker, and even Jimmy Doolittle were bomber commanders, not fighter commanders. Only in 1944 did Doolittle see the light and change tactics. Pilots like Lowell, Ilfrey, Morris, Heiden, and many others were able to fly the P-38 with great success in the 8th AF, despite often being tied to close escort duty, and as such being forced to allow the Luftwaffe to decide where, when, and how to engage, and with superior numbers over their own territory.
Fourth, with the exception of roll rate and top speed in a dive, the FW held no advantages over the P-38 that exceeded 10-15%, which is hardly enough of an edge to render any plain vastly superior or exceptionaly inferior. That is according to YOUR comparison data.
Fifth, you quote advantages the FW 190 had over the P-38F BELOW 20K, when escort duty and fighter sweeps were in fact conducted at altitudes of over 25K, by P-38G, H, J, and L models in the 8th AF.
Sixth, your analysis of the fight that resulted in McGuire's death is very weak. I have studied that fight in depth for several years, and was in fact working with a AF pilot who located and identified the wreckage and spoke with witnesses when progress on the project was halted by the events of 11 September 2001.
Seventh, your basing your arguement on that single fight gives you no real basis for arguement. Perhaps you should study McGuire more closely and read about his tactics and the circumstances of his victories before you make a rash and foolish assumption regarding turn fighting a P-38. You may want to read what his ground crew said about the damage to the planes he flew because of his radical high G turn fighting. Or what his wingmen and squadmates said about his ability to pull inside of turning Japanese planes and make impossible deflection shots.
Basicly, I find your knowledge of the P-38 rather lacking, and your knowledge of its performance both against the Luftwaffe (when flown by competent pilots in well run AF's) and the Japanese, both navy and army units to be very weak indeed.
-
OMG, I cant believe that last post. Are you a Michael Moore student or something? Either you are ignorant of the facts, or ignoring the facts that dont support you.
First of all I am not going to sit here and rattle off all the inaccuracy of your comments. LOL, there are others here that would be happy to take the time to do that.
Second of all you are going astray of the topics:
First, the stall characteristics under AH2s model. It is much improved. It used to be very snappy to either wing under elevator input, and that goes aginst its actual characteristics.
Subthread to that: The magnified adverse reaction to auto-flap-retraction, and concequently is there a fair way to turn off auto-retraction, and leave a fair peanalty in place for 'flap abuse' so to speak. And the subsequent description of how 38 drivers are more apt to complain about the topic.
Since I honestly am not familer with you crumpp, I wont out of hand characterize you as a trolling 'luftweenie' who thrills at elevating discussions with those evil non-luftweenies to the point of a thread lock. But if that impression is your wish, you're off to a good start.
-
yea, yea, yea. The F model compairison jumped off the screen at me. Like I said, I am not going to spend all night recounting history of Lockheed bug fixes not being passed on to training in the feild. Or sunken cargo ships of conversion kits, and such. Everyone else can handle that.
J_A_B in simple terms, there are so many inaccurate things being spewed, I dont even want to get into it. If you want some entertainment though, keep pointing things out. Hilts has barely begun to cover them, and look at the amount of text generated already
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah I reported it as news because it seems to be a P38 fan club whining that my plane is not as easy to shoot down other planes with as I want it to be.
No matter you want to SPECULATE about:
The fact stands the P38 was withdrawn from European Service because the UNITS that used it said it was being roughed up by the Luftwaffe.
This is backed up by verifiable flight test data from Air Services at war trying to find the best way to defeat their enemy.
Crumpp
The fact remains that you are completely and utterly WRONG.
ONLY the 8th AF had ANY real complaints and problems with the P-38.
The P-38 was ONLY withdrawn from 8th AF service NOT from the entire European theater. Get it right. The 9th retained the P-38 in several units AT THE REQUEST OF THE PILOTS WHO FLEW THEM. All the way to the end of hostilities in Europe. As did other units fighting the Luftwaffe.
In every unit EXCEPT the 8th AF, the P-38 maintained a 4-6:6 kill to loss ratio against the Luftwaffe. PERIOD. At worst, the P-38 record, even in the worst of the 8th AF, and including ALL losses of the P-38 including accidents, navigation error, and mechanical failure, as compared ONLY to combat losses of Luftwaffe aircraft shot down by P-38's, was 1.5:1. Factor out other losses, and compare combat losses to combat losses only, and the 8th AF P-38 kill to loss ratio approaches 3:1 in favor of the P-38 in the 8th AF over the Luftwaffe. Some 8th AF units kill to loss ratio is lower, but then some units were lower than others with all planes.
As it stands now, by the way, my k/d ratio in the P-38 (and I'm a lousy pilot) is in fact quite positive against most all planes. I'm near 2:1 against most Luftwaffe, Japanese, and Russian aircraft.
The P-38 pilots are only asking for the auto retract feature to be disabled, and not asking to be able to deploy the flaps at high speed, or to have them be immune to damage from excessive speed.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Hilts, Ack-Ack, and Murdr have all chimed in since Crumpp posted that evaluation....
And none of them pointed out that the subject of the evaluation--the P-38F--bears little in common with the P-38L we have in AH.
Man, I never thought I'd see the day when I would be sticking up for that ugly, overweight, overpriced, funny-sounding, elephantine jalopy those guys call a "fighter" :D
J_A_B
Oh, I did point that out. I also pointed out that he was comparing a plane that the 8th AF didn't even USE, and that where they did use the P-38G and H, it was used ABOVE the areas where he claimed the FW was superior. I pointed out all the holes in his arguement, but like any revisionist, he'll ignore them.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah I reported it as news because it seems to be a P38 fan club whining that my plane is not as easy to shoot down other planes with as I want it to be.
No matter you want to SPECULATE about:
The fact stands the P38 was withdrawn from European Service because the UNITS that used it said it was being roughed up by the Luftwaffe.
This is backed up by verifiable flight test data from Air Services at war trying to find the best way to defeat their enemy.
Crumpp
We're lucky in the 479th FG. We've been in contact with some of the surviving members of the 479th FG and one of them, Robin Olds (one of the top P-38 aces in the ETO) was upset of having to trade in his P-38J for a P-51D. If given the choice, he said he would have stuck with his P-38J Scat II.
ack-ack
-
Yeah I suppose your are all right.
It was just a big conspiracy theory against Lockheed and the P 38. The USAAF decision to not purse the P38 as an escort fighter was not motivated by wining the war in Europe. It's success was just swept under the rug and lesser fighters were adopted. The man will do anything to keep a good fighter down.
:rolleyes:
Grab a copy of "The Luftwaffe Fighter Force: A view from the Cockpit". It's the transcripts from the Allied interrogations of Luftwaffe fighter pilots after the war to validate the Allied Air Campaign. Check out the opinions of allied fighters section.
About the the P38 you will find:
"Luftwaffe pilots would always attack the P 38 over other USAAF escort fighters. It was a big target and not as manuverable as their other planes."
They did have some good things to say about it.
"The P 38 must have been good flying over water since it had two engines."
Lets check out how the P51B stacked up against the FW-190A3:
==============================================
Level Speed
The FW-190 is nearly 50 mph slower at all heights increasing to 70 mph above 28,000 feet.
Cimb
There is little to choose between the two in climb. The Mustang has a considerably better zoom climb at all heights due to its speed advantage.
Dive
The Mustang can always out dive the 190.
Turn
There is little to choose between the two aircraft with the Mustang having a slight advantage.
Rate of Roll
Not even a Mustang approaches the FW-190.
==============================================
The Mustang was a much better performer. Bottom Line.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
We're lucky in the 479th FG. We've been in contact with some of the surviving members of the 479th FG and one of them, Robin Olds (one of the top P-38 aces in the ETO) was upset of having to trade in his P-38J for a P-51D. If given the choice, he said he would have stuck with his P-38J Scat II.
ack-ack
Probably had something to do with those "vastly superior" FW 190's that were "roughing him up" so much. You know, the ones he blew clean out of the sky?
-
I love the FW-190, the Dora is my second favorite ride. My k/d this tour in 38 only 3.78, in the dora 6.2, but mabey we should discuss this in a 190 thread, or 38 v 190 thread eh?
-
It's not about the 190. It's about fan clubs making their "favourite" plane out to be more than it actually was in real life. Thank God HTC can see through this kind of stuff.
Are you actually surprised to see a pilot who has been successful in combat not being overjoyed at having to replace his comfortable known A/C with an Unknown one??
I don't like changing my "this one works without malfunctions" rifle out for a new one in combat either!
1. I agree with the flaps being set to whatever their historical performance settings were.
2. What is the difference between flaps breaking and autoretracting? I would only agree to a graduated "probability" of breaking IF when they did brake your plane took a big drag hit as it should from your flaps suddenly missing. Otherwise keep the autoretract because it keeps pilots "honest" and AH from becoming a Flap fest.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, you are comparing a P-38F to a P-51B.
That is the same logic as comparing DC-3 to a 707 and concluding that Boeing must build better airplanes than Douglas.
The P-38J is the contemporary of the P-51B. They are pretty much equal, with each of them having small advantages in certain areas. Likewise, the P-51D and P-38L are more or less equal, with the P-38L being arguably the better plane.
Of course, there's the matter of the fact that 8000+ P-51D's cost the US government less money than 3800 P-38L's. This financial factor is IMO what ultimately doomed the Lightning, not any deficiency with the actual airplane.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's not about the 190. It's about fan clubs making their "favourite" plane out to be more than it actually was in real life. Thank God HTC can see through this kind of stuff.
I don't think you'll see a post from one of us in this thread were we say such things. All we have pointed out is that the auto-flaps negatively effect the P-38 like no other plane in the current plane set. We have not asked for us to be able to deploy the flaps at higher than rated speeds, we've just asked that the auto-flaps get a looking at and only placed on planes that had them, or at least make it an option like Combat Trim.
Are you actually surprised to see a pilot who has been successful in combat not being overjoyed at having to replace his comfortable known A/C with an Unknown one??
The comment from Gen. Robin Olds was made about 4 years ago when he met with some of our guys in the 479th. The fact that he made that statement decades after he flew both the P-38 and the P-51D, pretty much says what needs to be said. Also considering that Olds was just as successful in the P-51D as he was in the P-38, also says a lot.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah I suppose your are all right.
It was just a big conspiracy theory against Lockheed and the P 38. The USAAF decision to not purse the P38 as an escort fighter was not motivated by wining the war in Europe. It's success was just swept under the rug and lesser fighters were adopted. The man will do anything to keep a good fighter down.
:rolleyes:
Grab a copy of "The Luftwaffe Fighter Force: A view from the Cockpit". It's the transcripts from the Allied interrogations of Luftwaffe fighter pilots after the war to validate the Allied Air Campaign. Check out the opinions of allied fighters section.
About the the P38 you will find:
"Luftwaffe pilots would always attack the P 38 over other USAAF escort fighters. It was a big target and not as manuverable as their other planes."
They did have some good things to say about it.
"The P 38 must have been good flying over water since it had two engines."
Lets check out how the P51B stacked up against the FW-190A3:
==============================================
Level Speed
The FW-190 is nearly 50 mph slower at all heights increasing to 70 mph above 28,000 feet.
Cimb
There is little to choose between the two in climb. The Mustang has a considerably better zoom climb at all heights due to its speed advantage.
Dive
The Mustang can always out dive the 190.
Turn
There is little to choose between the two aircraft with the Mustang having a slight advantage.
Rate of Roll
Not even a Mustang approaches the FW-190.
==============================================
The Mustang was a much better performer. Bottom Line.
Crumpp
The 8th AF had an agenda. It was unescorted daylight strategic bombing. Since they had no need (they thought) for long range escort fighters, they sent the P-38s they had, in early 1943, to North Africa and the Med. Only in mid to late 1943 did the 8th AF, forced to face the fact that unescorted daylight strategic bombing was an unsustainable failure, decide they needed long range escorts.
Unfortunately, their best and experienced units were all in North Africa and Club Med, flying P-38s, rather successfully. The P-47 did not have the range, the P-51 was not available. The 8th AF rushed two units to Europe, the 20th and the 55th. Both groups had lost many of their senior pilots nad their commanders to the replacement pool for other units. They did not even have enough planes to form the groups fully.
Despite being forced into operational status 90 days ahead of schedule, these two units reduced bomber losses by some 60+%, despite facing nearly 20:1 odds with zero combat experience. Caught by surprise, the Luftwaffe was forced to withdraw large numbers of 110s and 210s from interceptor duties, and replace them with frontline 109s and 190s from their best units. Still the bomber losses were dramatically reduced. The P-38 units, later joined by one P-51 unit, held their own against a vastly more experienced and numerous enemy. Still maintaining an overall positive kill to loss ratio.
The P-38 was eventually replaced in the 8th AF by the P-51, because there was a critical shortage of P-38s (there was only one plant that was NEVER allowed to even slow production) because the there was a shortage of P-38 trained and rated pilots, and because the P-51 presented fewer logistical problems from supply, to maintenance, to pilot training, and was about 1/2 the price of a P-38, and being produced around twice as fast.
It was very easy for the staff of the 8th AF, under withering criticism for incredible and unsustainable bomber losses, to blame the P-38, and the lack of the P-51, for their losses and poor performance. The truth was, they didn't WANT a long range escort fighter,they felt they didn't NEED a long range escort fighter, and when they were proven wrong, they needed a scapegoat or two for the military CYA mode.
You want FACTS from the Luftwaffe, read Steinhoff, not the apologist Bravo Sierra excuses
Steinhoff (yeah, the Luftwaffe ace who went on to run the NATO air forces) said that for the most part, the Luftwaffe pilots respected the P-38, because it was fast, climbed VERY well, and could easily be on your six before you knew what happened when you thought you had the advantage. They found it to be incredibly agile for a large fighter. Later, when the dive restrictions were raised, they respected it even more because they could not dive away from it.
The P-38L (yeah, the plane we have here) could roll faster than a P-51 at high speeds, had a greater rate of climb than the P-51, was faster at many altitudes, and had much better handling characteristics. Especially at low speeds with the fuel tanks full. It had a lower stall speed, easier stall recovery, was a more stable gun platform, and suffered no ill handling characteristics due to CG issues or torque.
For a great period of time, the Luftwaffe didn't even see anything but P-38 deep escort fighters. Until December 1943, the Mustang wasn't even THERE. Not to mention that until April/May 1944, the P-38 STILL outnumbered the P-51 in numbers deployed in the 8th AF. So of course the Luftwaffe attacked P-38s, or rather they fought P-38s, that was the fighter that was THERE.
By the way, if you think that the Allies always used the best equipment rather than what was more readily available, cheaper, and easier to manufacture and maintain, you should talk to Sherman tank (AKA Ronson, lights the first time everytime)crews, and a lot of sailors who sailed in whatever could be thrown together to float. Very often, Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen were equipped with what was available and affordable, regardless of how well it was suited for the task at hand.
Oh, and if you think that the Luftwaffe was vastly superior to the Japanese air forces, and they (the Japanese) were only second rate at best, you should ask pilots who fought both of them. They'll surely tell you different.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
1. I agree with the flaps being set to whatever their historical performance settings were.
2. What is the difference between flaps breaking and autoretracting? I would only agree to a graduated "probability" of breaking IF when they did brake your plane took a big drag hit as it should from your flaps suddenly missing. Otherwise keep the autoretract because it keeps pilots "honest" and AH from becoming a Flap fest.
Crumpp
Ok, then what is the agrument? There have been a couple of post on flap suggestions, that have been shot down by both "fan club" members, and non "fan club" members. Your #2 description is what I have spent several posts supporting.
The difference to the 38 pilot is that the speed windows on the flaps are small enough that the limits are often "brushed" during normal manuvers, and the auto-retract system has unrealistic effects on that situation.
Is the 38 the only plane this can happen in? No.
Should the 38 get some kind of special exemption? No.
Is there another option? I hope so, this "damage probability" suggestion may have potential, only time will tell.
As far as the actual damage, (disclaimer: with my limited knowlege) it would vary from system. Some mechanical systems could become uncontrolable, and be blown back against the wing, or become jamed in place, it would depend on where in the system the failure occured. I dont know the weakest link on the hydrolic system, but I can picture it being jamed in the extended position, or possibly comming off if it failed at the pivot points. Varied damage reflecting different systems would be icing on the cake, so much so that I hadnt brought it up even though the thought is there.
-
Their never was an argument. Some guys just didn't like it that their plane was not the end all fighter they wish it to be.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Crumpp, you are comparing a P-38F to a P-51B.
That is the same logic as comparing DC-3 to a 707 and concluding that Boeing must build better airplanes than Douglas.
The P-38J is the contemporary of the P-51B. They are pretty much equal, with each of them having small advantages in certain areas. Likewise, the P-51D and P-38L are more or less equal, with the P-38L being arguably the better plane.
Of course, there's the matter of the fact that 8000+ P-51D's cost the US government less money than 3800 P-38L's. This financial factor is IMO what ultimately doomed the Lightning, not any deficiency with the actual airplane.
J_A_B
I wouldn't necessarily say either is actually superior over the other.
In fact, I'd say the P-38 and the P-51 compare much as their modern counterparts the F-15 and the F-16.
In fact, the parallels between the two pairs is striking when you consider it.
Each has a very important role in the AF they serve, and unique characteristics that make it better suited for specific tasks, while able to perform most all tasks required quite admirably.
The two twin engined fighters are larger, heavier, more complex, more expensive, and better suited toward certain specifc tasks. But they are both still capable of handling any of their contemporary enemies in the hands of a skilled capable pilot.
The two single engine fighters are lighter, smaller, somewhat more maneuverable in certain flight envelopes, simpler, and less expensive. While well suited to certain tasks that the twin engined planes are less suited for, they are also capable of handling their contemporary enemies in the hands of competant pilots.
They fill two different roles, while able to crossover and handle other jobs quite well.
The P-47 fits somewhere in between, and really has no modern counterpart. In interdiction and ground attack the A-10 would be a modern counterpart (it is after all a Republic Thunderbolt), but there is no large heavy modern single engine fighter.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Their never was an argument. Some guys just didn't like it that their plane was not the end all fighter they wish it to be.
Crumpp
Wrong again.:rolleyes:
I never asked for the P-38 to be able to deploy flaps at speeds it could not and should not deploy them at. Nor did anyone else. That was, in fact, a straw man constructed by Kweassa.
Nor did I ask for the P-38 to be able to keep those flaps deployed at excessive speeds with no penalty or damage. No one else did either. That's another straw man.
What the hardcore P-38 pilots DID ask for was for the autoretract to be removed. The problem is that there is an arbitrary speed that forces the flaps up when no such thing occured in real life. And this speed can be easily reached and then just as easily and quickly decellerated from in an instant. At this point the speed is too low for the flaps to be raised without causing departure. The hardcore P-38 pilots are all to a man willing to accept damage to the plane should the flaps be deployed or remain deployed at excessive speeds for any real length of time.
-
"I'd say the P-38 and the P-51 compare much as their modern counterparts the F-15 and the F-16. "
I've actually used that comparison myself, from time to time.
Wow...it's late. I'm going to bed. Fun discussion.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"I'd say the P-38 and the P-51 compare much as their modern counterparts the F-15 and the F-16. "
I've actually used that comparison myself, from time to time.
J_A_B
As would any good student of history and fighter aircraft. It is very well founded, even used by the people involved with the design and selection of the aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Their never was an argument. Some guys just didn't like it that their plane was not the end all fighter they wish it to be.
Crumpp
Name one P-38 driver that has posted such a thing in this thread or any other thread in regards to the P-38?
ack-ack
-
There have been several long threads on the P-38 and P-51B and high altitude performance of them and there is no reason to go them through again. Shortly; the P-51B with the V-1650-3 was far better fighter above 25k than any serie produced P-38 ever flown.
BAC report on the P-38 can be found from here (http://prodocs.netfirms.com/)
NACA report on max lift coefficients can be found from here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/)
NACA report on dive recovery flaps can be found from here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/)
In addition "America's Hunred Thousand" contains unbiased performance data.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
There have been several long threads on the P-38 and P-51B and high altitude performance of them and there is no reason to go them through again. Shortly; the P-51B with the V-1650-3 was far better fighter above 25k than any serie produced P-38 ever flown.
gripen
You think. In certain situations, it was better, but not far better. You're right, there's no reason to go through them again. We are not buying it this time either. There are just as many pilots who flew both that find the P-38 equal to or better than the P-51 as there are with the opposing opinion.
Oh, and "America's Hundered Thousand", like any other book, is not totally devoid of bias. It is a good book, but not an unbiased source. Look and see if it shows the WEP data on the P-38L. The correct data. The P-38L, the variant produced in the largest numbers, had over 600 more HP due to improved engines, than the P-38J. Yet in most books, the P-38L is rated at the same speed at Military Power as the P-38J is at WEP, but WEP ratings for the P-38L are not given.
-
Yeah It's biased. It doesn't have the P38 running circles around every plane in the Theater...........
One things for sure, the P38 was replaced by more capable fighters in the European Theater. You can cry conspicarcy theory all day long but the fact remains, IT WAS REPLACED.
:rolleyes:
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah It's biased. It doesn't have the P38 running circles around every plane in the Theater...........
One things for sure, the P38 was replaced by more capable fighters in the European Theater. You can cry conspicarcy theory all day long but the fact remains, IT WAS REPLACED.
:rolleyes:
Crumpp
The fact remains, the P-38 was only replaced in the 8th AF. The 9th AF retained its P-38s, against the same planes the 8th AF faced. So, it was not replaced in Europe, it was replaced in the 8th AF. No matter how much you'd LIKE to believe the 8th AF represented the entire European theater, it obviously did not. It's just too damned bad that doesn't fit your arguement, it's still a fact.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
One things for sure, the P38 was replaced by more capable fighters in the European Theater. You can cry conspicarcy theory all day long but the fact remains, IT WAS REPLACED.
Crumpp
Can say the same for the P-47 (except for the 56thFG) in the 8th AF.
I know why Crumpp does not like the P-38. It is because 2 engines is too complicated for him.:p ;)
The P-38 did not disappear from the ETO, the 9th AF flew them.
- 367th FG; 392nd FS, 393rd FS, 394th FS; Stoney Cross, Ibsley
- 474th FG; 428th FS, 429th FS, 430th FS; Warmwell
- 370th FG; 401st FS, 402nd FS, 403rd FS; Andover
- 12th TRS, 15th TRS, 107th TRS, 153rd TRS, 30th PRS, 9th WRS(P), Middle Wallop
- 30th PRS, 31st PRS, 33rd PRS, 34th PRS, 155th NPS, 15th TRS; Chalgrove
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You think. In certain situations, it was better, but not far better. You're right, there's no reason to go through them again. We are not buying it this time either. There are just as many pilots who flew both that find the P-38 equal to or better than the P-51 as there are with the opposing opinion.
Why don't you read documents linked above? Maneuverability and dive restrictions of the P-38 at high altitude were serious and test data by NACA and by manufacturer confirm all this. Or are you saying that the pilots you refer were able to break physical laws?
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and "America's Hundered Thousand", like any other book, is not totally devoid of bias. It is a good book, but not an unbiased source. Look and see if it shows the WEP data on the P-38L. The correct data. The P-38L, the variant produced in the largest numbers, had over 600 more HP due to improved engines, than the P-38J. Yet in most books, the P-38L is rated at the same speed at Military Power as the P-38J is at WEP, but WEP ratings for the P-38L are not given.
We have gone through all this earlier; 1725hp rating for the F30 by Allison is at 3200rpm and grade 150 fuel (see "Vee's for Victory" or "Aircraft engines of the world"), so far no one has come up with verifyable documentation which proves that this rating was authorized or used by USAAF. The F30 had exactly same WEP ratings as the F17 with grade 100/130 fuel by manufacturer ie 1600hp at 3000rpm and 60".
gripen
-
Yes Milo they did have them. I have some excellent LW guncamera footage of 9th AF ground attack P38's getting bounced.
They were removed from the Escort fighter role.
Crumpp
-
Personally, I believe that if Republic had solved the P-47's range problems, you would be reading a lot less about the P-51 and the P-38 in aviation history. The Thunderbolt had better performance and maneuverability above 25,000 feet than either of the other two fighters.
-
The Thunderbolt was a great fighter. It is the fighter responsible for shooting the LW from the skies of Europe. At least for the USAAF. It destroyed more planes in Air to Air combat in the European Theater than any other type and went on to decimate the German Army.
I completely agree with you Shuckins.
Crumpp
-
Shuckins,
The P-51B with the V-1650-3 had better maneuverability and performance at high altitude than any P-47D with B-series R-2800. See AHT and the NACA lift coefficient link above. For the P-47 lift coeffients, see this (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1948/naca-tn-1734/).
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes Milo they did have them. I have some excellent LW guncamera footage of 9th AF ground attack P38's getting bounced.
They were removed from the Escort fighter role.
Crumpp
And I have numerous references of 9th AF P-38s 'bagging' e/a. Such as, 37 a/c lost in air combat (16 of which were 190s by JG6) on 25 Aug.
Yup, the P-47 did not leave to many LW a/c for the P-51 to shoot down. A few extra months of combat helped the P-47.;)
"Mustangs accounted for 4,950 of the 10,720 air combat victories claimed by the USAAF in Europe accounting for 46.2% of air losses inflicted on the enemy."
-
Just let crump go with the majority
ignorant thinkin
influenced by some arrogant LW pilots who wich ofcourse always tell the truth.
not to mention some LW FW aces died on a meeting with the lightning.
-
Originally posted by gripen
There have been several long threads on the P-38 and P-51B and high altitude performance of them and there is no reason to go them through again. Shortly; the P-51B with the V-1650-3 was far better fighter above 25k than any serie produced P-38 ever flown.
BAC report on the P-38 can be found from here (http://prodocs.netfirms.com/)
NACA report on max lift coefficients can be found from here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/)
NACA report on dive recovery flaps can be found from here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/)
In addition "America's Hunred Thousand" contains unbiased performance data.
gripen
gripen, I dont even know what your point is. For that matter Im not even sure what your references bring to the discussion. Citing a NACA reference from 1947? Kelly Johnson was frustrated that he had to put his test pilots at risk because the NACA would not do it. With the speeds needed for testing the NACA was concerned about damaging their wind tunnels. Kelly Johnson's report from 1943 researched and defined the mechanics of compressibility. Aircraft speeds before the 38 were low enough that the issue hadnt been expored before.
I spent several post talking specifically about that limitation on the P38, and its effects on its likelyhood to be put in the position of a low speed fight in the MA.
Crumpp, I believe, mistakenly had the impression that there was an active lobby going on here to have the P38 overmodeled, and approched it on the argument that with comparisons to other aircraft, we should not be allowed to change the model. When we pointed to a specific suggestion that has a concensus behind it, and was not limited to the P38, he did not offer opposition to it.
Going back to the thread topic, I would be interested if you had thing to offer to refute critiquing of the P38s performance under the AH2 flight model. For instance, it has been pointed out that while the dive flaps do simulate the disruption of airflow that staves off the shockwaves that cause loss of elevator control. They do not "pitch the nose up" or cause a noticable amount of lift that has been reported in real life. The accelerated stall characteristics still wing over. Many sources discribe accel. stall characteristic, and it doesnt appear to line up with the model. Those things are just observations, not a call to action. In fact I think if you read through you will find in most cases the people who observe these little details also praise the improved accuracy of the new flight model produced by HTC. Then there is the auto-flap issue that has been discussed at lenght.
If "there have been several long threads.......and there is no reason to go them through again." Why are you jumping in and pointing out limitations of the P-38 that have already been pointed out in discussion by the P-38 drivers themselves?
Dont take me the wrong way. Crumpp brought in the issue of direct a/c comparison. Before that compairisons were pointing out general shortfalls of the P-38. Is your argument that "your plane sucked, so I oppose any idea that makes your plane better, and wont engage you on the merits of your points?" If it is, frankly its kind of lame.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
That was an uncharacteristicly kind way you put that AKAK.
He caught me in one of those rare good moods
ack-ack
-
Murdr,
In fact No one said anything about the P38 other than:
1. It was primarily an Energy fighter. The exerpts from the P38 bulletin Murdr posted SAY that. See the blurb about High Wingloading??
2. Popping any flap should leave a plane low and slow quickly unless it's power to weight ratio is such that it can overcome the drag. Very few WWII planes are in this catagory. Was the only comment I had about the Flap modeling.
Next thing you know...P38 fanatics come flying out of the thread to PROVE me wrong! On what? Everything I have posted is fact. The P38 was CONTRIVERSIAL in WWII in the European Theater. Many factors go into making a decision and when they were all stacked up the P38 just wasn't the plane for the job in the 8th AF by the 8th AF OWN decision. You can debate, argue, cry, and moan all day long but the fact remains. I have read a few books but in no way consider myself an expert on the P38. In fact other than knowing the facts that the decision was made due to P38's handling problems (compressibility, slow roll etc...), logistical problems and problems meeting the single engine dayfighters of the LW (reasons stated by the 8th AF) I was kinda on the fence. More I look at though the more I DO agree with the 8th AF decision. It was the wrong fighter for them.
As for the flight test I posted. The P38F was the model at hand for the USAAF at the time Fabers 190A3 was captured. It did not make the grade and left many of the advantages with the 190. Now If you interested in comparing later model P38's with later model 190's I would love to exchange info with you.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah It's biased. It doesn't have the P38 running circles around every plane in the Theater...........
One things for sure, the P38 was replaced by more capable fighters in the European Theater. You can cry conspicarcy theory all day long but the fact remains, IT WAS REPLACED.
:rolleyes:
Crumpp
Why is it the Luftwhiners always get in a tissy fit when a player starts a thread on US planes? This was a thread about the auto-flaps feature and was going along great with some good ideas being tossed back and forth. Then here comes you, the Luftwhiner in lederhosen, crying about how we want the P-38 to be the uber of all uber planes. But the silly Luftwhiner you are, hasn't yet realized that in AH2, the P-38 is already uber. All we want is a gamey feature be removed or at the least make an option where if you want full control of your flaps you can disable the auto-retract or if the pilot is like you and needs that crutch of the auto-flaps, then they can keep this gamey feature on.
So unless you can actually provide some intelligent feedback on the auto-flaps system, you can remove yourself from this thread. I know it's hard to fathom but Germany lost the war and got their arses kicked. Get use to it and live with it.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
not to mention some LW FW aces died on a meeting with the lightning.
Don't forget the mighty and all powerful uber pilot Galland running away like a scared little school girl from a P-38. Lucky for him that Lowell was bingo and couldn't pursue Galland for the kill. I bet Galland had to change his lederhosen after that flight
ack-ack
-
crumpp the p-38 was not replaced due to performance. It was replaced due to economics.
A P-38 was twice as costly to build and maintain and required a much more skilled pilot (read: more training) than it would a P-51 or a P-47.
When the P-51 came into the war it was set to replace both the 38 and the 47 as an air superiority fighter...mainly because it was the only plane that had the range to fly freely to Berlin and back (38s could reach berlin but couldnt stay long, a 51 could).
The 8th AF had a serious problem with incompetent commanders handling the fighter arm. They just didnt grasp the fighter as an offensive weapon. They saw it as an escort for what they considered was the offensive weapon: the bomber (and the commanders that led the fighters in the 8th AF were..you guessed it! Bomber commanders. To them the fighter was like adding more turrets to the bombers instead of using the fighters to destroy the LW in the air).
That coupled with rather low octane fuel avaliable in england at the time, trouble with engine components (again, apparently only the 8th AF had this issue, med/africa and pacific theatre 38 units had almost no issue with this).
In the 8th AF's case, their bomber commander leaders (which again, also were in command of the fighters) they only switched tactics from using the fighter as a close escort to using the fighter to sweep the air clean of the LW just about the time the P-51 was entering service. And it doesn't take a genious to see that bomber commander would like to have cheaper fighters (Read:able to deploy more , faster) that could fly the whole way with the bombers , would choose to get rid of problematic P-38's (which were only problematic thanks to the way the bomber commanders managed them..no other AF had their problems) and take the new P-51 to replace them.
Also worthy of note is that by the time the P-51 came into the war the LW was already crippled.. the P-38 and P-47 and the RAF had ripped the LW apart. The P-51 just delivered the mercy blow over Berlin.
As far as the flaps: I'll be happy when the 38 doesnt autoretract & spin by merely touching the speed mark. Its as dumb as my car's engine blowing up when it touches the first red tick on my rpm gauge :P
-
Um...
The P-51 is credited with about 4900 planes killed in the air in ETO
The P-47 is credited with like 2800.
That doesn't seem like "more" to me.
Total kills in the ETO for the P-47 numbered about 6,000, versus about 9900 for the P-51--that is with ground kills included.
Where are you people getting "more" for the P-47 from? I have never seen anything to suggest that the P-47 scored more kills, A2A or otherwise, than the P-51 in the ETO. Are you assuming since the Mustang scored about 45% of the kills in ETO, that the Thunderbolt must have scored all the rest?
I think I know where your mistake lies---you looked at 12,000 total kills in ALL theaters of operation for the P-47, and thought that was its ETO score. The Thunderbolt served in large numbers in all theaters of the war with considerable success.
The P-47's real claim to fame was, in terms of losses, it was the safest fighter to fly--especially for the A2G missions.
I'm not here to claim that "plane x is better than plane y". I will, however, correct mistakes I see. The P-51's success in ETO was largely due to timing, change of tactics and its excellent gunsight. Any of the fighters the USAAF used would have been equally as successful under those circumstances.
How did we get to talking about the Jug in a P-38 thread?
J_A_B
-
Murdr,
I did not turn this thread to P-38 vs other planes discussion, some other writers did. I just pointed with the reference that there were good aerodynamic reasons why the P-38 did not do well in the high altitude. Actually I wrote that there is no reason to start that discussion again.
Regarding NACA and P-38, actually NACA invented dive recovery flaps for the P-38 and did preliminary work (wind tunnel testing etc.). Funny thing is that the dive recovery flaps were first tested on the XP-51 which in fact did not need them. Later the P-38 and the P-47 got dive recovery flaps as standard equipment. Naca wind tunnel testing also revealed the reasons for the high speed problems and NACA also developed several solutions. Basicly NACA is the last one to blame on high speed problems of the P-38; I think that first one to blame is allready mentioned in your post.
And if you study carefully the last linked report (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/), you will note that it gives quite thorough picture on tuck under phenomena as well as function of the dive recovery flaps. Only thing it misses is the drag rise caused by dive recovery flaps. For that you should get DSIR 23/15088 from the PRO (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/).
OIO,
Actually the F-5Bs in the MTO had very similar problems as the P-38Js in the ETO during winter 43-44, see AHT. Fighter groups in the MTO did not get P-38Js before spring because the ETO had priority.
gripen
-
Ack-Ack
Why don't you put that quote back into context. It's refering to the book "Fork Tailed Devil". The author struck me as very biased TOWARDS the P38 and against the 8th AF decision. He blames it on the only shipment of parts in the European Theater to fix the compressability problem being shot down by a spitfire over the Atlantic. The book is long on pilot stories and short on data.
Crumpp
-
gripen,
Quoting from the NACA Report on Maximum Lift Coefficients;
"In the subcritical Mach number region, the maximum lift coefficient obtained in flight by the airplanes tested (F6F-3, P-38, P-51, P-63, P-39) declined steadily with increasing Mach number. As the Mach number was increased in the supercritical Mach number region, the maximum lift coefficient of NACA conventional airfoils continued to diminish as at subcritical Mach numbers, while that of NACA low-drag airfoils reached a minumum at a Mach number between 0.40 and 0.55 and then began increasing until secondary peak values were reached at a Mach number between 0.50 and 0.66."
If I read this right, the effect of the Reynolds number on the lift coefficient of conventional airfoils was more or less linear, increasing geometrically the faster the airplane flew...that is lift decreased progressively in the same manner at supercritical Mach numbers as it did at the subcritical Mach numbers.
The lower-drag airfoils (laminar flow for example) reached minimum lift coefficients between 0.40 and 0.55 and then began to increase as the aircraft approached supercritical Mach numbers. In other words, if this performance was graphed, it would show a low point for lift between 0.40 and 0.55 and would then begin to show a rise, or increase in lift at speeds above Mach 0.55.
Mach .60 at 30,000 feet is roughly 450mph. The only American prop-driven fighter capable of that kind of performance in level flight at that altitude was the P-47. For an aircraft with a laminar flow or similar low-drag airfoil to realize any lift coefficient benefit over a conventional airfoil such as that of the P-47, it would have to be put into a dive.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk in this equation is thrust, determined by propeller efficiency and high-altitude horsepower available for combat. Late model P-47s could maintain sea-level powers of 2700hp all the way to 35,000 feet. The P-51D saw its available power drop from 1700hp at sea level to 950hp at 29,500 feet. The P-38s maintained sea-level powers to altitudes slightly above 26,000 feet after which they began to drop. With full internal fuel and ammo, the P-38 was also heavier than the P-47, which means that the P-47 enjoyed a lower power-loading at higher altitudes than the Lightning.
All this indicates that at normal combat speeds, the Jug had better maneuverability at high-altitudes than either the Pony of the Lightning. This is borne out by the testimony of numerous pilots who have flown all three types: that is, the Jug was the most maneuverable fighter they ever flew at high-altitudes
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ack-Ack
Why don't you put that quote back into context. It's refering to the book "Fork Tailed Devil". The author struck me as very biased TOWARDS the P38 and against the 8th AF decision. He blames it on the only shipment of parts in the European Theater to fix the compressability problem being shot down by a spitfire over the Atlantic. The book is long on pilot stories and short on data.
Crumpp
I think it was YOU who suggested it as the source for P-38 information, and I corrected you on that. While it is an interesting book, and the anecdotal information has merit, it is not nearly as good a P-38 book as Warren Bodie's "The Locckheed P-38 Lightning."
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Mach .60 at 30,000 feet is roughly 450mph. The only American prop-driven fighter capable of that kind of performance in level flight at that altitude was the P-47. For an aircraft with a laminar flow or similar low-drag airfoil to realize any lift coefficient benefit over a conventional airfoil such as that of the P-47, it would have to be put into a dive.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk in this equation is thrust, determined by propeller efficiency and high-altitude horsepower available for combat. Late model P-47s could maintain sea-level powers of 2700hp all the way to 35,000 feet. The P-51D saw its available power drop from 1700hp at sea level to 950hp at 29,500 feet. The P-38s maintained sea-level powers to altitudes slightly above 26,000 feet after which they began to drop. With full internal fuel and ammo, the P-38 was also heavier than the P-47, which means that the P-47 enjoyed a lower power-loading at higher altitudes than the Lightning.
All this indicates that at normal combat speeds, the Jug had better maneuverability at high-altitudes than either the Pony of the Lightning. This is borne out by the testimony of numerous pilots who have flown all three types: that is, the Jug was the most maneuverable fighter they ever flew at high-altitudes [/B]
The P-38J and L models maintained sea level power to approximately 30K, at which point the turbocharger could no longer keep up with the supercharger in the thin air. Even then, the P-38 did not lose power nearly so fast as the P-51. Also, the P-38 applied its power through two props, which gave it an advantage in the ability to apply a greater percentage of the available power. Even at 30K, the P-38 was capable of around 3000 HP, applied through two propellers. The P-38 did have rather poor propellers compared to the P-47 and the P-51 models that were equipped with the Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle prop which was hydrostatically controlled.
-
Originally posted by gripen
I did not turn this thread to P-38 vs other planes discussion, some other writers did. I just pointed with the reference that there were good aerodynamic reasons why the P-38 did not do well in the high altitude. Actually I wrote that there is no reason to start that discussion again.
gripen
You can thank Crumpp for turning a discussion about P-38 flaps into another bogus blizzard of Bravo Sierra about comparisons between the P-38 and the P-51 or the FW 190. You'll have to ask him what the point of the exercise was.
-
I did not blame the NACA for anything. That is just silly. However, I should have structured those two sentences differently, to reflect that there was a delay in gathering wind tunnel data because the speeds were higher than the wind tunnel should make, and because the accuracy of scaling data had not been confirmed yet. Both, had some trial error diagnosis, because this was unexplored territory. When you consider that the early devlopment of a/c like the 47, 38, and 51 were out pacing what was understood about aeronautics how can you play a blame game?
To my understanding the "dive flaps" on the xp-51 or technically the A-36? were intended for drag to hold down speeds, and not as dive recovery flaps to cure the tuck under issue. No doubt they were the reference point. After all, this was all happening within a reletively small timespan. The 38s dive problem was discovered in late 41. Kelly issued a fairly good diagnosis in early 42, and the order for an attack version of the 51 came in early-mid 42.
Your second and third post kind of threw me off that your first post was just to offer reference material. One document I hadnt seen before was DSIR 23/15088, thanks Ill check it out when I get the chance.
-
I think this thread has reached the point of diminishing returns. No one is going to change their mind. If HTC is even considering doing something about the flaps, then the purpose has been served.
I'm pretty much done here. I'd much rather be flying.
-
You mean you're not staying until the name calling starts, and the thread gets locked? :D
-
==============================================
You can thank Crumpp for turning a discussion about P-38 flaps into another bogus blizzard of Bravo Sierra about comparisons between the P-38 and the P-51 or the FW 190. You'll have to ask him what the point of the exercise was.
==============================================
No I didn't. Your feeling of being "threatenend" by someone new showing up in the thread did. Sorry I did not have my P38 Poms-poms out doing a couple of cheers.
I was agreeing with you, Virg on the book. It is biased, full of opinion and short on data. It does not have the P38 running circles around LW fighters, it does have it stomping the Japanese.
Now check this out. As a general rule Problems in combat equal deaths on the battlefield.
Plane performance is almost equal so other factors become important.
Compressibility problem = pilots unable to dogfight efficiently = LW has the advantage in winning against P38
Lack of trained pilots = many inexperienced pilots out there or a shortage of pilots = LW has the advantage in winning against P38.
Supply problems = not as many A/C available = less P38's in the sky = Lw has the advantage again.
That make the 8th AF's decision that the LW had the advantages over the P38 easier for you fans to digest?
The 190 test is not MY data. It's the USAAF's. I posted it to rebuke the claims of P38 superiority and to show that the planes were equal. The bullet comments are the test conclusions quoted verbatium not mine. Unlike the pacific theater where the P38 had some dominating characteristics over the Japanese fighters in the European Theater aircraft performance was much closer. Pilot skill won the day. The P38 just had too many peripheral problems the at the end of the day. It was not the premier USAAF fighter.
I fail to see where my assesment of McGuire's last fight is inaccurate. He stalled it and spun in attempting to get his nose around to save his wingman. What else do you want to add? He stalled it cause he didn't advance the throttle's at the same time? Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Murdr I agee with 90 percent of your assesment of the P38 performance but just have one problem. If it was such a good Turnfighter then why wasn't that recommended? Seems to me it was IF in an emergency and you were forced to turn, then the P38 became a turnfighter. It was not the prefered method for fighting the P38 as opposed to other lower wingloaded fighters like the Zeke or the spit whose primary method of fighting was angles. Least that is how interpreted the P38 bulletins from the USAAF/Lockheed.
As for me being a "Luftwhiner", well obviously you folks don't drop in the LW threads. I will say this, Just like the book "Fork Tailed Devil" this thread has been long on "Bravo Sierra" and short on facts/data.
Crumpp
-
Your presence threatens no one. Especially not me.
It was YOU who began the pointless tirade about the P-38 being replaced by superior planes. So, yes, in fact it was you that turned the thread into a plane vs plane comparison. It was you that compared the P-38 to other planes, not someone else.
Don't blame me for your inadequacies, it was you who started the comparisons, go back and look at the thread.
The P-38 did stomp the Japanese. And other than in the 8th AF, it pretty well took care of the Luftwaffe as well, with a 4-6:1 kill to loss ratio outside the 8th AF. And a near 3:1 kill to loss ratio in the 8th AF.
The fact that there were too few P-38s is not the fault of the plane. Blame that on the War Production Board. It was the WPB that forced Lockheed to produce B-17s because Boeing could not meet the demands (had they had more P-38s instead, they'd have needed less B-17s).
Compressibility was not so serious an issue. It only prevented the P-38 from following Luftwaffe planes down in a dive. Big deal.
The Luftwaffe didn't have advantages over the P-38, it had advantages over the 8th AF. Plain and simple. If the Luftwaffa had advantages over the P-38, it would not have done well everywhere but in the 8th, but it did.
This is real simple.
The fact that there were too few P-38s is not an indicator of inferiority of the P-38, but an indicator of fundemental inadequacies in the supply system. The WPB forced Lockheed to build B-17s, and failed to second source the P-38. That has nothing at all to do with the P-38, and everything to do with the WPB.
The fact that there were not enough trained pilots for P-38s does not indicate an inadequacy in the P-38, it shows a basic fatal flaw in the pilot training system.
By the way, regarding McGuire, the first failure in your analysis is that you neglect to grasp the concept that there were in fact two enemy planes involved, they entered the fight at different times and from different directions, and that the P-38s were fully laden with nearly full drop tanks and full internal loads of fuel. Further, you also did not take into account that McGuire was flying an unfamiliar plane, not his regular plane, and that it required an all night maintenance thrash just to be ready to fly that day.
I really do not care who the data on the FW came from (in your post you listed the RAF).
Oh, and one more note. Beware of test data from military sources. In case you are not familiar with how the military actually acquires equipment, you should get intimate with the propcedure. Because if you think the best equipment for the job is always what is accepted, you are terribly mistaken. You should really study the way equipment was acquired and produced in World War II, look carefully at the War Production Board and the USAAC. The data is often skewed to allow acquisition of a certain piece of equipment. This greed and corruption goes on to this day.
-
I am fairly familiar with the Military. I have 3 years til retirement as a grunt.
Crumpp
-
You still sound like you want to pretty up the facts to make them more palitable. We call it splitting hairs.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You still sound like you want to pretty up the facts to make them more palitable. We call it splitting hairs.
Crumpp
Facts are facts, doesn't make a damn how you dress 'em.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I am fairly familiar with the Military. I have 3 years til retirement as a grunt.
Crumpp
Thank you for serving. With all due respect, being a grunt, as much as I respect it and appreciate it, does not necessarily make you all that familiar with the politics of acquisition. I've had experience with contracts with the DoD. It ain't pretty.
-
Shuckins,
The P-51B with the V-1650-3 had better rate of climb at above 25k than any P-47D or P-38J (it was also faster than both above 25k), see AHT. In practice this means that the P-51B also had more power for maneuvering than the P-47D or P-38J above 25k. The P-51B could also reach higher acceleration at any given practical airspeed above 25k as lift coefficient comparison proves. Shortly the P-51Bwith V-1650-3 had better instantaneous and continous maneuverability than the P-47D or P-38J at high altitude. In addition the P-51 maintained controllability much better at around critical mach number.
The P-51B with the V-1650-3 had much better high altitude performance than the P-51D with the V-1650-7.
Murdr,
The A-36 had dive brakes developed for dive bombing which were physically much different than the dive recovery flaps tested in the XP-51, see this (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7f09/).
Basicly Locheed could not determine reasons for high speed problems of the P-38 but NACA could. NACA also offered a practical but only partial solution to the problem which was taken to the production. Lockheed's own solutions failed or were impossible to take to the production without large delays. For one reason or another Kelly Johnson does not credit NACA for these.
gripen
-
Kelly Johnson does not credit NACA because they deserve no credit. It was Lockheed that identified the problem, and NACA refused to allow wind tunnel testing.
The only outside fix accorded Lockheed was those stupid counterweights that did nothing.
It was Lockheed that came up with the dive flaps and the new fillet radius at the cockpit nacelle.
NACA had nothing at all to do with solving any P-38 high speed issues.
-
Capn Virgil Hilts,
The horsepower rating for the V-1650-3 engine was 950hp at normal power at 29,500 feet. It's rate of climb at that altitude was little better than 1600 feet a minute, whereas that of the P-47 D series was approximately the same. Power loadings were nowhere near as similar...that of the Jug being 7.21 pounds per horsepower at 30,000 feet and that of the P-51D (V-1650-7) being better than 10 lbs per horsepower. This is what contributed to greater maneuverability for the Jug.
Also, this advantage in power loading allowed the P-47 to have a service ceiling a full 5,000 ft. greater than that of the Mustang. According to German pilots, Me-109Ks also had a higher service ceiling than the Mustang...again because of superior power loadings.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Murdr,
The A-36 had dive brakes developed for dive bombing which were physically much different than the dive recovery flaps tested in the XP-51, see this (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7f09/).
gripen
I have seen that many times. It says, as I said, they were first tested at Ames in 1942 (October). "and were first flight tested by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation from December 1942 to April 1943. Subsequent flight tests....Army Air Forces and Republic...P-47...xp-51" I made my previous statments from memory of multiple sources, and I dont see where my memory served wrong.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
You mean you're not staying until the name calling starts, and the thread gets locked? :D
Hehe that's on Page 3...just look for Luftwhiners in leterhosen :cP
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Compressibility problem = pilots unable to dogfight efficiently = LW has the advantage in winning against P38
Which was no longer an issue with the P-38JL0-25 series or the P-38L since they had dive flaps. Lockheed's top test pilot even flew demonstrations showing how the P-38 could avoid compressability with the dive flaps but by then the 8th AAF had already made up it's mind. And as other's have pointed out, it was only the 8th AAF that got rid of the P-38 but then the 8th AAF high command had a bomber's mentality.
When the first P-38Js with dive flaps started to appear, German pilots were pretty much astounded that the P-38 was able to follow them in a dive when they weren't before.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Lockheed's top test pilot even flew demonstrations showing how the P-38 could avoid compressability with the dive flaps but by then the 8th AAF had already made up it's mind.
ack-ack
...with 2000 extra lbs on specified by the Army, to hit the critical speed at a shorter dive, and to make sure the fillets would hold up.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I fail to see where my assesment of McGuire's last fight is inaccurate. He stalled it and spun in attempting to get his nose around to save his wingman. What else do you want to add? He stalled it cause he didn't advance the throttle's at the same time? Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Crumpp
The only way you snap roll a P-38 inverted like that is assymetric power. He didn't stall his plane and then spin in.
You should take the time to watch the "flight characteristics of the P-38" (it's an official USAAC training film) up on Zeno's website or the excellent video from the late Jeff Ethel, "How to fly the P-38". Both films talk about spins relating to the use of assymetric power in the P-38.
Or better yet, if you have a dual throttle you can do it yourself in AH and see how the plane will snap roll inverted. Nasty thing.
ack-ack
-
Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Capn Virgil Hilts,
The horsepower rating for the V-1650-3 engine was 950hp at normal power at 29,500 feet. It's rate of climb at that altitude was little better than 1600 feet a minute, whereas that of the P-47 D series was approximately the same. Power loadings were nowhere near as similar...that of the Jug being 7.21 pounds per horsepower at 30,000 feet and that of the P-51D (V-1650-7) being better than 10 lbs per horsepower. This is what contributed to greater maneuverability for the Jug.
Also, this advantage in power loading allowed the P-47 to have a service ceiling a full 5,000 ft. greater than that of the Mustang. According to German pilots, Me-109Ks also had a higher service ceiling than the Mustang...again because of superior power loadings.
I think you should be directing this reply at Gripen. It is he whom you are discussing this with, and not I.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Crumpp
Whatever you wish to think Crumpp. The facts have been presented, think what you will. Further debate with you is pointless. Oh, and using one single incident is hardly the way to assess what you are attempting to. But then you knew that already, or at least should have. But continue to choose and present only the "evidence" that you like.
-
So what do want me to say Capt'n??
That he FLEW his plane in smaller and smaller circles until he reached the green earth?
Ohh you are right! Losing lift on the wings because of assymetrical power really is not stalling the plane. It's flying it in a really small circle.
Assymetrical power is the cause of the stall. Trying to get his nose around to save his wingman is the reason he applied assymetrical power. Which changes nothing to my original statement.
Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Crumpp
-
My assesment of that incident, and many will agree with me, is that it was caused by McGuire's decision to hold his drop tanks, and he would most likely not have crashed if he would have followed proper plane managment proceedure before entering combat.
-
Shuckins,
Normal rating for the V-1650-3 is at 2700rpm, combat and military ratings are at 3000rpm. Comparable outputs with high speed RAM at 30k for the P-51B-1 and P-47D-10 (note that D-10 had the GE C-23 turbo) are following (From "Tactical Employment Trials North Americamn P-51B-1", Appendix of the "Mustang Story" by Ken Delve contains this report):
P-51B-1 1200hp (61" 3000rpm)
P-47D-10 2200hp (56" 2700rpm)
In addition the P-51 utilized exhaust thrust which in the case of the P-47D was used in the turbo.
AHT shows speed and climb values just up to 30k (the FTH of the P-47D ie the altitude where the turbo reaches it's limits), the interesting part is what happens above 30k. Again speed values from above mentioned source:
30k P-51 433mph, P-47 433mph
31k P-51 432mph, P-47 430mph
32k P-51 431mph, P-47 427mph
33k P-51 430mph, P-47 422mph
34k P-51 428mph, P-47 415mph
35k P-51 425mph, P-47 405mph (P-47 curve ends to 35400ft)
36k P-51 422mph
37k P-51 418mph
38k P-51 414mph
39k P-51 408mph
40k P-51 400mph
The P-51 could maintain it's performance much better than P-47D above FTH. The climb curve of the P-47D-10 ends to 30k but there is no reason to believe that it behaves differently than speed curve if compared to the P-51B-1. What can be certainly said is that at 25k the P-51B climbed better than P-47D and at 30k they were about equal. Above that altitude the P-51B probably climbed better because it could maintain it's performance better. Generally climb speed is much better indicator for sustained maneuverability than powerloading.
The P-51B with the V-1650-3 had about same service ceiling as the P-47D ie around 40k depending on source.
Hilts,
The role of the NACA in the developement of the dive recovery flaps is well documented. From NASA site (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/ch9.htm):
"In March 1942, after less than four months of tests in Langley's 8-Foot HST, Stack's engineers reported that they had an answer to the P-38's dive-recovery problem: a wedge-shaped flap installed on the lower surface of the aircraft's wings. They said that their tunnel tests showed that wings having this flap would retain enough lift at high speeds to enable a pilot to pull the plane out of steep dives.5 Langley then turned the dive-recovery program over to its sister facility in California-Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field-where the flap idea could be proved sound to nearby Lockheed more expeditiously than at faraway Langley. Further tests in Ames's new 16-Foot HST did prove the idea sound: NACA-style dive-recovery flaps eventually saw service not only on the P-38 but also on the P-47 Thunderbolt, the A-26 Invader, the P-59 Airacomet (America's first jet), and the P-80, the first U.S. airplane designed (by Lockheed) from the beginning for turbojet propulsion."
Ack-Ack,
Basicly dive recovery flaps did two things:
1. Added positive pitch moment to counter tuck under.
2. Added considerably amount of drag to keep plane out of trouble.
The dive recovery flaps did not change the speed where the tuck under phenomena started nor prevented other compressibility problems. All this is well documented in the above mentioned sources.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
Crumpp
Hmmm...record starting to skip there? Or you just can't face the fact that you're wrong, which is something that I'd think you'd be quite used to by now. Or are the ledenhosen riding up a little and cutting off the blood circulation?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by gripen
Ack-Ack,
Basicly dive recovery flaps did two things:
1. Added positive pitch moment to counter tuck under.
2. Added considerably amount of drag to keep plane out of trouble.
The dive recovery flaps did not change the speed where the tuck under phenomena started nor prevented other compressibility problems. All this is well documented in the above mentioned sources.
gripen
Actually the drag from the dive flaps was caused from the nose up pitch of the plane. P-38 pilots would use the dive flaps at high speeds to help in turning but had to be careful and not keep them deployed too long because the nose up pitch would cause them to lose E pretty quickly.
ack-ack
-
My assesment of that incident, and many will agree with me, is that it was caused by McGuire's decision to hold his drop tanks, and he would most likely not have crashed if he would have followed proper plane managment proceedure before entering combat.
And that changes :
Sure I'll play your silly game. Ok so He stalled it and spun in an attempt to get his nose around to save his wingman.
HOW?
Crumpp
-
Actually the drag from the dive flaps was caused from the nose up pitch of the plane. P-38 pilots would use the dive flaps at high speeds to help in turning but had to be careful and not keep them deployed too long because the nose up pitch would cause them to lose E pretty quickly.
I always wondered about this. How large would the pitch-up movement be with the diveflaps deployed?
In AH2, really honestly, I don't feel any kind of difference in handling whether they are applied or not(I don't use CT).
In FB/AEP, the diveflaps virtually make the plane do a loop all by itself when deployed. It feels like the elevator trim suddenly maxed out to the top.
So which depiction would be more correct? Or would it be somewhere in between??
-
Originally posted by gripen
Ack-Ack,
Basicly dive recovery flaps did two things:
1. Added positive pitch moment to counter tuck under.
2. Added considerably amount of drag to keep plane out of trouble.
The dive recovery flaps did not change the speed where the tuck under phenomena started nor prevented other compressibility problems. All this is well documented in the above mentioned sources.
gripen
Dont leave out the upper surface shock that causes compression in the first place. Dive recovery flaps effectively change the shape of the foil. To be effective they have to be located so that the change in airflow moves the formation of the upper surface shock farther back on the upper surface. Without that effect positive pressure remains soley on the top of the wing instead of the bottom. They do not change the speed where the shock waves are formed. However up to a critical speed they allow lower surface pressure to be greater than the upper surface, where it would not without the flaps. As the speed increases the shock moves forward.
If anyone asked me, which they didnt, ;) that is what they do, and is what distinguishes a "dive flap" from a "dive recovery flap"
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So which depiction would be more correct? Or would it be somewhere in between??
Somewhere in between, as it was described to my by a 38 pilot. It was appearently not inperceptible as it is modeled in AH.
-
Ack-Ack and Murdr,
It would help a lot if you actually understand what the report (http://http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/) says:
"The outboard dive recovery flaps produced favorable shift in trim by decreasing the angle of attack for the zero lift and increasing downwash on the tail, but did not alter the the mach number the diving tendency developed"
Note the part on angle of attack (Ack-Ack) and part on diving tendency (Murdr), this can be confirmed from the graphs (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/index.cgi?page0023.gif) too.
For wind tunnel data on drag you should get that DSIR 23/15088. Here is some numbers from that report:
mach clean flaps
0,5 0,030 0,034
0,6 0,035 0,05
0,65 0,042 0,10
At mach 0,65 the dive recovery flaps doubled the drag.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I always wondered about this. How large would the pitch-up movement be with the diveflaps deployed?
In AH2, really honestly, I don't feel any kind of difference in handling whether they are applied or not(I don't use CT).
In FB/AEP, the diveflaps virtually make the plane do a loop all by itself when deployed. It feels like the elevator trim suddenly maxed out to the top.
So which depiction would be more correct? Or would it be somewhere in between??
The nose up pitch from the dives flaps in AH doesn't seem as pronounced as the ones I've read from P-38 veterans. I've read some stories that sometimes they blacked out from the nose up pitch.
In AH, if you have the elevator trimmed to close to neutral, you will see the P-38's nose pitch up but it's nothing dramatic.
ack-ack
-
Translation:
gripen: chicken bla bla chicken
Murdr: yes, well dont forget about the egg that the chicken came from.
gripen: you dont understand what your talking about, its all about the chicken.
suit yourself. The properties I described are all there and documented mr know-it-all.
-
Murdr,
Well, let's try again a bit more simple way:
"High speed wind tunnel tests of a model of this airplane, whic are reported in references 2 and 3, showed that the inboard portion of the wing between booms had a relatively low critical Mach number which was being exceeded considerably in dives at high altitude. At the supercritical speeds investigated there was little change in the angle of attack for zero lift, but there was a significant reduction in lift-curve slope accompanying the loss of lift of the center section of the wing and a shift of load to the outboard portion of the wing. The reduced lift-curve slope, the shift in span loading and reduced downwash on the tail greatly increased the static longitudinal stability, resulting in a strong diving tendency. "
Shortly this means that it was the inboard portion of the wing which caused the tuck under.
"The outboard dive recovery flaps produced favorable shift in trim by decreasing the angle of attack for the zero lift and increasing downwash on the tail, but did not alter the the mach number the diving tendency developed"
Shortly this means that the dive recovery flaps were installed to the outboard portion of the wing and nothing changed in the inboard section where the problem was. Therefore it should be easy to understand that the tuck under problem was there with or without dive recovery flaps. The dive recovery flaps just added positive pitch up moment to counter the tuck under and increased the drag considerably to keep the plane out of trouble.
gripen
-
==============================================
Translation:
gripen: chicken bla bla chicken
Murdr: yes, well dont forget about the egg that the chicken came from.
gripen: you dont understand what your talking about, its all about the chicken.
==============================================
Translation:
I don't know what your talking about Gripen so I will attack you since I don't want to ask questions and appear stupid.
Gripen is saying the Dive recovery flaps masked the symptoms not fixed the problem and added quite a bit of drag. At least according to the aerospace engineers.
Gripen is presenting cold hard facts. Which much more than anyone else in this thread has done. Why is he being attacked?
Many times if you look hard enough you will see the pilot stories do line up with the scientific data. If you dig hard enough I am sure you will find it.
And if you think I've got poms-poms out for LW planes you haven't
t been in any LW threads. I am firmly for realistic modeling of the A/C. Otherwise what is the point of a simulation.
Crumpp
-
Christ you are being thick. You do understand that in order for a plane to fly you have to generate greater lift under the wing rather than over? Do you understand that the formation of super sonic shock on the upper surfaces causes greater pressure on top? That is the opposite of flying. Hello? Still with me? Deployment of the dive recovery flaps changes the shape of the wing. The change in shape causes the shock to form further aft. If the shock is further aft, you have positive pressure UNDER the fore of the wing, and positive pressure ON TOP OF the aft of the wing. These forces would tend to pitch the nose up.
As speed increases the shock moves further forward until the flaps become useless. If you re-read looking specifically for references to "upper surface shock" you will see that is what pitches the nose up.
Are you contending that the dive flaps magiclly pitch the nose up? Or are you contending that the dive flaps form a greater supersonic turbulence under the wing than on top? Its one or the other because you apperently are disagreeing with my statments about the shock formation being displaced. If that were the case aerodynamically it would continue to push to the ground.
-
Can u not read the graphs Gripen has posted? I am not trying to second guess the scientific data. I am reading what the aeronautical engineers got for test results on actual aircraft under controlled test conditions. In otherwords VALID scientific DATA.
Looks like their are a few configurations for the inboard flaps which do produce a nose up situation.
However most of the conditions tested with the inboard flaps the P38 seems to adopt a nose down attitude.
In either situation the dive flaps produced huge amounts of drag.
So yes your pilot andectdotes are truthful. The pilots certainly are not lying HOWEVER the nose up attiude occurs in part of the flight envelope under certain conditions. In a normal dive profile the scientific data points the tuck under still existing.
READ the DATA Gripen posted.
Crumpp
-
the dive flaps prevented the tuck under if they were deployed before a dive (under ~300mph)... if deployed after the ~300mph the dive flaps would create a 3g nose up pull.
38 test pilots even commented the plane would pull a neat loop all on its own if the flaps were deployed after.
-
I had posted on the fly my previous 2 posts.
In general, the effectiveness of the flaps increased considerably with increasing Mach number to well past the Mach number of lift divergence. As shown in the typical pressure distribution the pressure recovery aft of the flap was less complete at hugh Mach numbers, causing a considerable increment of negative pressure over a larg portion of the upper wing surface. Also, the upper-surface shock moved aft when the flaps were deflected. Both of these effects contributed to the flap effectiveness. However, there is evidence that the effectiveness will decrease sharply above some Mach number between that for lift divergence and a Mach number of 1.0
I was not at all trying to refute anything you said to begin with. However I was pointing out how it aids in recovery when compression is reached. You pointed out the fillets are more effective on the outside of the nacells as opposed to the inside. That would make sence considering the distance between the leading edge and the center of the wing is shorter on the outside of the nacells than on the inside.
You stated:
The dive recovery flaps did not change the speed where the tuck under phenomena started nor prevented other compressibility problems.
I didnt/dont disagree with that. However with the dive flaps employed, lift characteristics at the onset of compression are starting from a more favorible position than without them. This allowed the pilot to recover with less altitude. Or as they summised it in NASAs history "In March 1942, after less than four months of tests in Langley's 8-Foot HST, Stack's engineers reported that they had an answer to the P-38's dive-recovery problem: a wedge-shaped flap installed on the lower surface of the aircraft's wings. They said that their tunnel tests showed that wings having this flap would retain enough lift at high speeds to enable a pilot to pull the plane out of steep dives."
-
So why all the nastiness?
Crumpp
-
I dont know, I try to point out a facet of dive recovery flaps and I get talked down to as if I dont have a clue. I had just re-read that report about a month ago after seeing a P38 and talking to a pilot. I asked about stalls, acclerated stalls, stalls in a hard bank, the dive flaps. So as I said, 1. I posted on the fly 2. Replies to me were snobish.
-
Roger that.
There is a lot of snobbishness on this BB.
Sometimes we all forget that we don't have all the visiual clues which tell us what someone is actually thinking. The emotion icon are a poor substitute.
Crumpp
-
Murdr,
I don't know which of your posts are worth to reply?
That DSIR 23/15088 is a RAE report on dive test on the P-38 with dive recovery flaps and it contains measurements on pull out force. At 10k and mach 0,65 flaps gave about 3g pull out, at 30k and mach 0,65 about 1g pull out. Above critical mach number effectiveness of the dive recovery flaps decreased just like the NACA report indicates. "Wings of the Weird and Wonderfull" by Eric Brown contains a chapter on these tests.
I don't what has been snobish here, but it's quite strange if I first link couple reports on dive recovery flaps and after that someone starts to teach how these devices work. Anyway, in the case of the P-38 it should be noted that wing itself without fuselage did well up to and over mach 0,7 and dive recovery flaps were located to the outer section which did fine while the problems generated in the inner section. So IMHO talking about shockwaves around flaps and effectiveness of the flaps is a bit missleading.
gripen
-
Well, I was a Lederhosen wearing Luftwhobble....shhheeesh.
Obviously someone who has never been in a Luftwaffe thread.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sometimes we all forget that we don't have all the visiual clues which tell us what someone is actually thinking. The emotion icon are a poor substitute.
Crumpp
good point
-
One thing I've learned from this thread is that P38 fans are awfully long winded :)
Oh, and to answer a question about 4 pages ago, yes I've flown the 38 in AH2, found it a lot of fun. Had some good fights with someone who's name I can't recall who also flys the 38. Didn't have any problems with the flap retracting spins as others seem to. I didn't turn it as well as I used to, but I don't play often anymore so I attributed it to that more than on any real performance degrade.
I'm no expert though, and I have no real love for the 38 other than it can be a fun plane to fly in Aces High.
-
I found this accidentaly today when I was searching help on a complete different subject ...
But I think it will interest the P38 lovers :
Hangar flying (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/index.htm)
-
got me something to print thanks
:)
-
Originally posted by straffo
I found this accidentaly today when I was searching help on a complete different subject ...
But I think it will interest the P38 lovers :
Hangar flying (http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/index.htm)
Just a small point, but I posted reference to that on page 2 of this thread already. Thanks though ;)
-
oups :)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1089441954_p38l.gif)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1089442709_p38-dive.jpg)
From that other game...
-
lmao those are some great pics, did you draw that one about the p38 attack profile? that was very good.:rofl