Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Jackal1 on December 14, 2004, 06:03:47 PM
-
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
-
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
-
Karnak,
Only a guess, but maybe pulling tour figures of what % of the tour US, British, German, Italian, Russian and Japanese planes are flown respective to each other as a block choice by players will tell why this focus on one group of planes over another by HTC here at the begining of AHII.
Just a thought. I would suspect working on the planes more of the paying customers use is some of the motivation.
Personally I fly the P47 because of my squad. It would be nice though to see more representation of IJN/IJA, Russia, Italy and possibly a German transport. More strange eye candy to blow tail feathers off of.:D
P.S. The clipped wing spit would be intersting along with an Oscar.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
Just because it doesn't have dive flaps doesn't mean you can dive in the P-38J. It should dive just as well as the late model J and L model. Like those planes, you just have to be careful at which altitude you start you dive from. As long as you take care and don't enter into compressability, you should be OK.
ack-ack
-
You're right Ack-Ack. I shouldn't have said it can't dive. I should have said it can't pull up.:p
bustr,
As I said in the P-38G and P-38J thread, we needed the P-38F or P-38G for scenarios and the P-38J is icing on the cake. I'm all for both of these aircraft to be added and am happy to see them. I have no US vs JP vs UK vs RU vs DE vs IT issues going on here.
What I don't really understand is the enthusiasm for the P-38J when, so far as I can tell, it will be inferior to the P-38L in all but having a slightly higher top speed. It isn't that I don't want the P-38J, it is that I don't understand people's apparent expectations of it.
-
One great thing about getting the P-38J is that matched planesets will now be more accurate. Previously any matchup that included the 38L as a sub for the G will now be a little more fair to the Axis pilots who won't need to deal with the L's superior roll rate.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What I don't really understand is the enthusiasm for the P-38J when, so far as I can tell, it will be inferior to the P-38L in all but having a slightly higher top speed. It isn't that I don't want the P-38J, it is that I don't understand people's apparent expectations of it.
Because a lot of those used to fly the P-38J in AW and probably expect it to be the same without realizing that the P-38J in AW was a late series model, not an early model J.
Personally, I'm more partial to the G model since that is what the majority of the P-38s that were flown by the 479th.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by oboe
One great thing about getting the P-38J is that matched planesets will now be more accurate. Previously any matchup that included the 38L as a sub for the G will now be a little more fair to the Axis pilots who won't need to deal with the L's superior roll rate.
We're getting the P-38G as well, so we won't even have to deal with the P-38J's and P-38L's speed.
I'd still like to see a P-38F. Actually I'd rather have the P-38F and P-38G than the P-38G and P-38J. I am glad to see that we are getting earlier P-38s though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
lots of green skins.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
Because I say so. :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
Probably because so many people like to say "I've got a pair of PJs at 15K" :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Alpo
Probably because so many people like to say "I've got a pair of PJs at 15K" :rolleyes:
Alpo,
After your comments to RAD, I thought you were prohibited from talking about people having "pairs" of anything!:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Actually I'd rather have the P-38F and P-38G than the P-38G and P-38J.
Why? There's hardly any difference between the F and G. OTOH, there is a big difference between the J(last block J's excluded) and the L.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Why? There's hardly any difference between the F and G. OTOH, there is a big difference between the J(last block J's excluded) and the L.
Agreed. Folks have to realize that the Fs and Gs were operating together in the 38 units. The MTO 38 Groups, 1st, 14th and 82nd were operating both types well into 1944 as well even as the early Js were arriving.
Quoting the 82nd FG History
"Replacement pilots, having been trained on the latest type of P38s in the states are puzzled by the sight of our old F's and G's still being used in combat."
This from March 20, 1944:
"It would be many weeks, however, before the J's completely replaced the older planes, and many of the group's ancient F's and Gs labored on throughout the spring."
What it comes down to is that the G and J were also being operated together in the 38 Groups.
And the 82nd as an example, didn't get a dive flapped equipped J-25 (the equivalant of an L model) until August of 1944.
So thanks to the AH powers that be, we will have 38s that cover the period of 42 to early 44 with the G. Early 44 until late 44 with the J and late 44 until the end of the war with the L.
Can't do it much better then that :)
Dan/Slack
-
wow! when?? I might have to download the patch and play!
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Why? There's hardly any difference between the F and G. OTOH, there is a big difference between the J(last block J's excluded) and the L.
I understood there to be a difference in engine power on overboost (same power on MIL though) and a difference in ordinance hard point capability.
If I'm wrong then the G and J sound great to me.
I've been assuming that you'd do an early J otherwise it wouldn't really make sense alongside the L.
-
And a quote from John Mullins, 1st FG P38 pilot and author of the 1st FG History.
He is talking about the J-25 which is essentially the same plane as the P38L. This wouldn't be the J we're getting but speaks to the differences between the Early model 38s through the J-20 and the later J-25 and L models.
"In the latter part of the summer the P38J-25 began to appear at Salsola. This modification of the J series represented the greatest change yet from the pilot's point of view. The two major differences were the addition of the hydraulic aileron boosters and the placement of dive brakes under each wing. The aileron boost made an amazing difference. It was similar to what we now call power steering on automobiles and improved the control sensitivity of the P38 enormously. During the first take offs in the J-25s the ship litterally fluttered as it left the ground due to the pilot overcontrolling despite his best efforts not to do so."
And a follow up quote from Mullins:
"The dive brake modification was designed and actually approved early in 1943. By the time the brakes were installed in the J models over half of all P38s had been constructed. So goes bureaucracy, even in wartime."
Sounds a tad bitter that old 38 driver :)
He started in F models and finished in an L model while flying with the 94th FS, 1st FG.
Dan/Slack
Can't wait for that G
-
So Pyro are you saying the AH P38J will be an early model that did not have the powered controls and dive flaps so it is differentriated from the L?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You're right Ack-Ack. I shouldn't have said it can't dive. I should have said it can't pull up.:p
bustr,
As I said in the P-38G and P-38J thread, we needed the P-38F or P-38G for scenarios and the P-38J is icing on the cake. I'm all for both of these aircraft to be added and am happy to see them. I have no US vs JP vs UK vs RU vs DE vs IT issues going on here.
What I don't really understand is the enthusiasm for the P-38J when, so far as I can tell, it will be inferior to the P-38L in all but having a slightly higher top speed. It isn't that I don't want the P-38J, it is that I don't understand people's apparent expectations of it.
One word: scenarios.
Two words: combat theater
The more versions we have available, the more we will be able to match a particular period in WW2.
shubie
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So Pyro are you saying the AH P38J will be an early model that did not have the powered controls and dive flaps so it is differentriated from the L?
It would almost have to be unless it's a J-25, which basically makes it an L anyway. And Pyro's post mentions the last block Js which would be the 25 and implies it's not that one.
Dan/Slack
-
So Dan, in terms of auguring,
The difference between the early ‘J’s and the ‘L’s is that you’d be more likely to ground loop an ‘L’ on take-off but for post-hole digging you’d favor the ‘J’.
Did I get the gist of it?
-
Originally posted by Honch
So Dan, in terms of auguring,
The difference between the early ‘J’s and the ‘L’s is that you’d be more likely to ground loop an ‘L’ on take-off but for post-hole digging you’d favor the ‘J’.
Did I get the gist of it?
I figure with the more streamlined, small intake G model, I'll get better ground penetration and depth :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by rshubert
One word: scenarios.
Two words: combat theater
Somehow I really doubt that is why people are excited about the P-38J. If that were the case you'd think the P-38G would get noticed.
I think that people expect the P-38J would be some sort of super P-38 that is better than the P-38L.
I think they're in for a surprise.
Personally the P-38G is much more interesting than the P-38J.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I understood there to be a difference in engine power on overboost (same power on MIL though) and a difference in ordinance hard point capability.
Neither the F nor the G had a War Emergency Rating. The F and the G are pretty overlapping variants and there's not much to gain by having both. You could make a case for the H as that kind of represents a transitional stage in P-38 development between the early and late models.
I guess nothing goes without saying but of course it would be completely superfluous to choose a J-25 instead of an earlier J model.
-
Ah.
Thanks for the response Pyro.
I do think that they'll both be invaluable assets for the scenario makers.
-
amen to that!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I think that people expect the P-38J would be some sort of super P-38 that is better than the P-38L.
I think they're in for a surprise.
Yep.
ack-ack
-
I still wont be able to fly the darn thing
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Neither the F nor the G had a War Emergency Rating. The F and the G are pretty overlapping variants and there's not much to gain by having both. You could make a case for the H as that kind of represents a transitional stage in P-38 development between the early and late models.
I guess nothing goes without saying but of course it would be completely superfluous to choose a J-25 instead of an earlier J model.
Pyro, Military Power on the P-38G-1-Lo and later G models was 1150HP, and WEP was 1325HP. The duration for which WEP is available should be very short, but it IS available. The only thing keeping it from making 1425HP for short bursts was the lack of automated systems for cooling.
The P-38H-1-Lo and P-38H-5-Lo made 1240HP at Military Power and 1425HP at WEP. The difference between the -1 and -5 was the type of turbocharger. The H series DID have the automatic controls.
Since the H model is what the 55th and 20th both went operational with, the H is a very important model.
I certainly agree, the J model should be a -15 or a -20, and not a -25.
-
In my PJ,
fly I will.
Shot you down,
buttflap kill!!
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Pyro, Military Power on the P-38G-1-Lo and later G models was 1150HP, and WEP was 1325HP. The duration for which WEP is available should be very short, but it IS available. The only thing keeping it from making 1425HP for short bursts was the lack of automated systems for cooling.
Are you sure you aren't referring to normal and military power with those ratings?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Are you sure you aren't referring to normal and military power with those ratings?
Yes, I'm sure. The reference I have that is most handy right now is "Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Steve Pace. Refer to pages 50 and 51. It is not terribly well written, you have to read the section from P-38F to P-38H carefully, a couple of times, to pick it out, it isn't a chart. But it does give Military and WEP, not normal and Military. I don't have anything else terribly handy right now. Of course, you have to factor in that with the pre J models, WEP was very short duration.
-
Pyro, I take it the "rework" of the P-38L is the "3D model" for graphics, and not the flight model. Is that correct?
-
At last we get a 2nd and 3rd model i won't complain.
The G is very close to the F so it's usable in early scenarios.
This also counts for the J wich is very usable in scenario's . Imagine a high alt escort misssion and u get bounced by LW planes The fights at least won't get to deck imidiatly and more high alt fight will occur. It will be challenging.
They both are only more challenging than the L offcourse The L is just the best.
At last we gonna see some green P38's flying
I'm gonna watch for scenarios and ct setups after they are released.
Ill give it a new chance :)
So
:aok we got more types than the mustang after the next release and when my country has the numbers there will be an another P38 available
no more underdog feeling
Thanks !!
-
i hope the f gets the cooling problems modled, i cant wait to see noobs running around going "hot hot hot"! boooom on main channel :lol
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, I'm sure. The reference I have that is most handy right now is "Lockheed P-38 Lightning" by Steve Pace. Refer to pages 50 and 51. It is not terribly well written, you have to read the section from P-38F to P-38H carefully, a couple of times, to pick it out, it isn't a chart. But it does give Military and WEP, not normal and Military. I don't have anything else terribly handy right now. Of course, you have to factor in that with the pre J models, WEP was very short duration.
I looked at the area you cited and I think I see what you're referring to, but that's pretty ambiguous and doesn't really give much info. What are the other sources you're referring to?
It's a confusing issue because the engine ratings were getting tweaked in the early 38's. Allison did not put forth War Emergency Ratings on the 38's until the P-38H. 1325 HP (47.5" 3000 RPM) was the spec military rating of the P-38F. This was derated to 1150 HP (41.5" 3000 RPM) in Mar 42 as the first 38F's were being delivered. In Oct 42, the 1325 HP rating was reinstated for Takeoff to 4000' and a military rating of 1240 HP(45" 3000 RPM?) from 4000' to 25000'. 8th FC was testing and adopting their own standards as well which makes it even more convoluted. Then when the 38H came out with a new engine installation, it too was derated from its spec. So when comparing one model's power to another, it requires quite a bit of specifity to know exactly what it is that the author is referring to.
-
Pyro,
Is there any particular reason you are using 8th AF FC specs and standards? It should be pretty obvious that the 8th AF screwed the pooch with the P-38. Why not look at units with a much higher success rate?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Pyro,
Is there any particular reason you are using 8th AF FC specs and standards? It should be pretty obvious that the 8th AF screwed the pooch with the P-38. Why not look at units with a much higher success rate?
Use the stuff those guys in the MTO were using who were flying Fs and Gs well into the spring of 44 :)
They knew what they were doing
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Use the stuff those guys in the MTO were using who were flying Fs and Gs well into the spring of 44 :)
They knew what they were doing
Dan/Slack
Amen.
-
Could we use the 2000hp Fw190D-9 then?
-
What are the other sources you're referring to?
He asked for your references. You will need more then the "Mr. P38 pilot said..." line that is always the main part of your argument.
Post credible documents or data and I am sure Pyro will look at them.
You cited Lockheed P-38 Lightning by Steve Pace and Pyro read the pages and doesn't see what it is you 'interpreted after you re-read it several times'. As if your lack of objectivity would allow any other interpretation.
As Kweassa said there's all types of this sort information floating about for every aircraft in AH. You don't model planes based on some poorly written section of a book or because based on the memory of 80 year old men. You need real data.
-
Here's a website I found with more info on varients:
http://p-38online.com
P38G: new Allison V-1710-F-10 engines; At 24,000 ft. it produced 1,150 hp, and at 27,000 ft., it produced 1,100 hp; It also incorporated the newly designed B-13 superchargers; Late 'G' production models were capable of carrying two 2,000 lb. bombs.
P-38J: V-1710-F-15 engine could produce 1,600 hp. The top speed was 425-430 mph at 30,000 ft., and 406 mph at 20,000 ft.; The leading edge intercoolers were removed, and extra fuel tanks (110 gallons) were installed.; It also had electrical operated dive brakes, and an aileron boost system. This boost system enabled the pilot to only exert 17% of the previous force to control the yoke.
P-38L: V-1710-F30 engine produced 1,600 hp at maximum power, and produced a normal rating of 1,100 at 30,000 ft.; External fuel capacity was increased to allow two 300-gallon tanks to be used; One interesting improvement was the installation of a new tail-warning radar system. It would signal the pilot through flashing lights and bell sounds when an aircraft was in close proximity behind the aircraft. ; Maximum speed at 25,000 ft. was 414 mph,
and could reach 20,000 ft. with a takeoff weight of 17,500 in seven minutes. The P-38 L was the final air superiority/strike variant of the P-38 produced.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Pyro,
Is there any particular reason you are using 8th AF FC specs and standards? It should be pretty obvious that the 8th AF screwed the pooch with the P-38. Why not look at units with a much higher success rate?
:confused: I don't know what you mean by that. Where did I say or even imply that I was using 8th FC specs?
-
I think the 8th FC data he is refering to is the 414mph top speed of the P-38L. CVH has several times stated that the 414mph speed was it's top speed on MIL power and the P-38L's top speed on WEP was, IIRC, about 440 or 450mph.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
:confused: I don't know what you mean by that. Where did I say or even imply that I was using 8th FC specs?
I was looking at your post where you said the "8th FC was testing and adopting their own standards as well which makes it even more convoluted."
Gave me the impression you were looking at their Bravo Sierra as if it were reliable and accurate data, which it is not.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I think the 8th FC data he is refering to is the 414mph top speed of the P-38L. CVH has several times stated that the 414mph speed was it's top speed on MIL power and the P-38L's top speed on WEP was, IIRC, about 440 or 450mph.
And I KNOW you are wrong. The 414 MPH data is from the USAAC, and not the 8th AF FC.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Could we use the 2000hp Fw190D-9 then?
Which has what to do with a discussion about the P-38?
And if you have reliable proven data from manufacturers documentation and logs, from the aircraft company and the engine company, I have no problem with it.
You asked why these discussions seem to degenerate into flamefests and Luftwhiner name calling. Since you insert your comments like the above into EVERY thread about the P-38, and half the other Allied plane threads, the answer stares you in the face when you look in the mirror. You brought the Luftwaffe into this thread now, and in the other thread you posted derogatory remarks about P-38 pilots in an "Axis Flaps" thread. So when threads degenerate the way you complain they do, ask yourself how much you contributed to making it happen. And again note that this is a thread about the P-38, where the Luftwaffe was not mentioned until YOU decided to bring it in. Think about it.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
He asked for your references. You will need more then the "Mr. P38 pilot said..." line that is always the main part of your argument.
Post credible documents or data and I am sure Pyro will look at them.
You cited Lockheed P-38 Lightning by Steve Pace and Pyro read the pages and doesn't see what it is you 'interpreted after you re-read it several times'. As if your lack of objectivity would allow any other interpretation.
As Kweassa said there's all types of this sort information floating about for every aircraft in AH. You don't model planes based on some poorly written section of a book or because based on the memory of 80 year old men. You need real data.
Wotan, is there any particular reason you feel it is necessary to insert yourself into a conversation between Pyro and myself? I think he and I can discuss sources and data without any help at all from you. I will provide Pyro with more data when I have time, all I did was ask about his sources, and point him to something I happened to read recently. Pyro saw what I was talking about, and found it ambiguous, and I agree, it is, and it is hard to read.
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
You and Kweassa both need to look at what you brought to this thread the next time one of these threads goes careening out of control. You both complain about flamefests and "Luiftwhiner" insults, but continually insert your comments and insults into every thread about Allied planes, especially the P-38. And yet you wonder why the threads all turn out the same.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
-
No WEP on the P-38G? I can't abide fighter planes with no WEP. It just feels downright 1940!
Virgil and Dan/Slack, if you have more specific data on WEP for the G, please get those references to Pyro. Let's get this issue ironed out BEFORE it's introduced to the game. The Ki.84 is fine now but it felt awful without a WEP setting. Thanks in advance for helping out any way you can!
If its true the G ha no WEP then let me be the first to ask for the H instead (or in addition to)...
Just saw your last post, Virgil, thanks really for helping get the early '38 modelled correctly.
-
Originally posted by oboe
No WEP on the P-38G? I can't abide fighter planes with no WEP. It just feels downright 1940!
Virgil and Dan/Slack, if you have more specific data on WEP for the G, please get those references to Pyro. Let's get this issue ironed out BEFORE it's introduced to the game. The Ki.84 is fine now but it felt awful without a WEP setting. Thanks in advance for helping out any way you can!
If its true the G ha no WEP then let me be the first to ask for the H instead (or in addition to)...
Just saw your last post, Virgil, thanks really for helping get the early '38 modelled correctly.
oboe,
Most of the early P-38's had cooling issues, and any setting like WEP was only available for very short durations. Also, in some theaters of operation, the fuel was very poor quality, and WEP could not be used. The USAAC often downrated engines for reliability reasons, and they were VERY conservative.
I have no interest at all in making the P-38, any model, into some sort of "uber" ride. All I am interested in is getting it right. As Pyro said the data on the P-38 is very ambiguous and convoluted, especially if you use anything other than official Lockheed or Allison data. This is because the USAAC data is very questionable, because it is based on opinion, conjecture, and politics.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I was looking at your post where you said the "8th FC was testing and adopting their own standards as well which makes it even more convoluted."
Gave me the impression you were looking at their Bravo Sierra as if it were reliable and accurate data, which it is not.
I'm not sure what you're talking about now. I was just pointing out that there's a lot more to the subject of early 38 engine ratings than what was described.
I don't know why you would doubt it, but with the early 38's, 8th FC was much more aggressive regarding engine ratings than what was officially prescribed. They were even looking at adopting WEP on the 38F which would have given 1450 HP at 52".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And I KNOW you are wrong. The 414 MPH data is from the USAAC, and not the 8th AF FC.
As I indicated in my post, I wasn't certain that I recalled correctly.
No need to get so defensive.
-
You are the one with the issues, err 'problems' in that any one who doesn't agree with your fantasies is some how against you.
Look at the shift in your tone to Pyro after he read the same thing you did and came to a different conclusion, look at your reply to both Kweassa and Karnak.
You set the tone with your replies not the other way around. If you want to treated as something other then a kook then look to own behavior. Every P38 thread you stick your head in and never provided anything more then 'Mr. XX said...'
Pyro asked for your sources and you have provided nothing.
You want to construct the p38 out some image you have rather then providing the data that is necessary to model the aircraft. You just offer opinions and stories. As kweassa rightly pointed out anyone can come up with opinions and stories about every plane in AH.
So far you contribution to the this thread was to accuse Pyro of using BS '8th AF' data and the only thing you provided was
'After reading the section several times I was able to make up on my own what the author really meant.'
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm not sure what you're talking about now. I was just pointing out that there's a lot more to the subject of early 38 engine ratings than what was described.
I don't know why you would doubt it, but with the early 38's, 8th FC was much more aggressive regarding engine ratings than what was officially prescribed. They were even looking at adopting WEP on the 38F which would have given 1450 HP at 52".
Like I said, I misunderstood you. I read the post and noticed the section where you referred to the 8th AF FC. The majority of what I've read in the past does not cast a good light on what the 8th AF did with the P-38. While they had a few bright moments, overall they did a poor job with it.
I know that what was in that small book was not by any stretch the whole story, it really is nothing more than some snippets from other books and sources, I just happened to be reading it this week because I got it as a gift from a well meaning friend. I agree, it was hard to get the information from that section, I had to read it 3 times myself. There are far better books, I know. Most of mine are on loan, or in storage, or worst of all, gone, not returned by people who borrowed them.
And most of what I've read from the 8th AF FC is exactly the opposite. Not to mention the USAAC was more conservative in most areas.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Most of mine are on loan, or in storage, or worst of all, gone, not returned by people who borrowed them.
Back in the dinosaur days my 1st wife went the same way of some of your books.
A buddy borrowed her and left town. He never did return her or come back.
Man, I sure do miss him. :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why was this worth a new thread and what is the big deal about the P-38J? It'll just be a poorer rolling P-38L that can't dive while having a very slightly faster top speed. What do you expect it to bring to the table that makes it "Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet."?
Exactly, why couldnt we get the 38D or the 38H which have more unique characteristics than the 38L. It would be a lot more interesting if we had the 38D or the 38H.
Canaris
-
Originally posted by Canaris
Exactly, why couldnt we get the 38D or the 38H which have more unique characteristics than the 38L. It would be a lot more interesting if we had the 38D or the 38H.
Canaris
We're getting the P-38G too. Also the P-38J will be distinct from the P-38L, just not the good ways that some seem to expect.
-
Originally posted by Canaris
Exactly, why couldnt we get the 38D or the 38H which have more unique characteristics than the 38L. It would be a lot more interesting if we had the 38D or the 38H.
Canaris
38D makes no sense since it never saw combat, despite what some folks claim.
P38G makes great sense as it was the first Lightning variant with over 1000 produced.
This is about double F production and more then double H production. The G was the first to get the reinforced wing that allowed for the ferry tanks and larger bomb loads.
Performance between the F, G and H was comparable so the G is the perfect compromise.
For what it's worth the 339th FS that intercepted Yammamoto were flying G models.
The most active 38 groups in Europe from 42 on, the 1st, 14th and 82nd flew a mix of Fs and Gs.
Same goes for the Pac 38 groups into early 44 when the got the Js and later Ls.
Bottom line is the G model is the best choice for an early 38.
Early J gives the longer range and better performance and was used extensively before the J-25 and L models arrived with the power boosted ailerons and dive flaps.
The G and J along with the L cover all the ground, both for folks who like early war birds in the MA and for scenario use
Dan/Slack
-
I did alot of looking around some time ago and Dan/Slack is right on the money.
The first air victory was recorded by a P38F by Elza Shahan, while the P38Ds were used primarily for training roles.
Still, it would of been nice to have that potatoe gun the P38Ds had. :D
-
Just in case. Here is a diagram of the armor/winshield/gunsite for P-38J-5-LO and earlier models. J-10-LO and later had the L-3 gunsite and armored windshield.
Image linked due to size (http://www.airwarrioronline.com/films/gunsite009.jpg)
-
p38online, and p38assn are nice sites, but JBoughers articles from 1999 are the most detailed online articles on P-38 development:
The P-38G began to roll off the production lines in June of 1942. It was basically similar to the P-38F apart from a change to the Allison V-1710-51/55 (F10) engine with increased boost ratings and offering 1325 hp for takeoff. However, the engine was limited to 1150 hp at 27,000 feet due to inadequate cooling. In addition, the P-38G carried a SCR-274N radio and A-9 oxygen equipment.
Production of the P-38G was divided across six blocks. There were 708 US-ordered Model 222-68-12 aircraft. 80 of these were P-38G-1-LOs which were generally similar to the P-38F-15-LOs but with the new engines, improved oxygen equipment and more reliable radios. Twelve of them were P-38G-3-LOs with B-13 superchargers. 68 were P-38G-5-LOs with revised instrumentation and 548 were P-38G-10-LOs which combined the improvements introduced in the two previous blocks with winterization equipment, provision for carrying 1600 lb bombs underneath the wing center section, or a triple cluster of 4.5-inch rocket launchers on each side of the central nacelle. The 374 Model 322-68-19s (174 P-38G-13-LOs, equivalent to the P-38G-3-LO and 200 P-38G-15-LOs, corresponding to the P-38G-5-LO) came from the cancelled British contract for Lightning IIs which was taken over by the USAAF.
Unarmed photographic reconnaissance versions of the P-38G were also produced under the designation F-5A. A single F-5A-2-LO (model 222-62-16) was completed by modifying a P-38E airframe (41-2157) by installing V-1719-21/29 engines. All of the other F-5As (Model 222-68-16) had P-38G airframes and 1325 hp V-1710-51/55 engines. Twenty F-5A-1-LOs, twenty F-5A-3-LOs, and 140 F-5A-10-LOs had the same modifications as P-38G variants with corresponding block numbers, and came off the production line in parallel with their fighter counterparts. All were unarmed and carried five cameras.
One F-5A-10-LO (Ser No 42-12975) was modified as an experimental two-seat reconnaissance aircraft under the designation XF-5D-LO. The camera operator was located in a glazed nose compartment with two forward-firing 0.50-in machine guns. Three K-17 cameras were installed, one underneath the nose and one in each tail boom.
One P-38G-5-LO (42-12866) was used as a testbed for the proposed XP-49 armament (two 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-in machine guns). The USAAF also undertook at Wright Field preliminary design for a proposed derivative of the P-38G which was to have carried a 75-mm cannon in a revised and enlarged central nacelle. However, this concept never got past the initial design stage.
The P-38G had a loaded weight some 200 pounds less than that of the P-38F, and was the most widely-built version of the early Lightnings. 1082 P-38Gs had been delivered by March of 1943. 181 of these had been completed as F-5A photo reconnaissance aircraft and another 200 had been completed as F-5Bs with camera installations similar to that of the F-5A-10-LO but with engines and airframe identical to those of the later P-38J-5-LO. One F-5A-10-LO (Ser No 42-12975) was modified as an experimental two-seat reconnaissance aircraft under the designation XF-5D-LO.
Specification of P-38G-1-LO
Maximum speed: 345 mph at 5000 feet, 360 mph at 10,000 feet, 400 mph at 25,000 feet. 850 miles range on internal fuel at cruising speed of 219 mph at 10,000 feet. 1750 miles range at 211 mph at 10,000 feet with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Climb to 10,000 feet in 3.7 minutes, climb to 20,000 feet in 8.5 minutes. Service ceiling of 39,000 feet. Weights were 12,200 lbs empty, 15,800 lbs normal loaded, 19,800 lbs maximum loaded. Dimensions were wingspan 52 feet 0 inches, length 37 feet 10 inches, height 9 feet 10 inches, wing area 327.5 square feet. Armed with one 20-mm Hispano M1 cannon with 150 rounds and four 0.50-in Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. Could carry two 325, 500, or 1000-lb bombs.
Serials for the F-5A/P-38G production run were as follows:
41-2157 Lockheed F-5A-2-LO Lightning
42-12667/12686 Lockheed F-5A-1-LO Lightning
42-12687/12766 Lockheed P-38G-1-LO Lightning
42-12767/12786 Lockheed F-5A-3-LO Lightning
42-12787/12798 Lockheed P-38G-3-LO Lightning
42-12799/12866 Lockheed P-38G-5-LO Lightning
42-12870/12966 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-12967/12986 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-12987/13066 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13067/13126 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13127/13266 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13267/13326 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13327/13557 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
43-2185/2358 Lockheed P-38G-13-LO Lightning
43-2359/2558 Lockheed P-38G-15-LO Lightning
Sources:
Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987
The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.
Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.
United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
I did alot of looking around some time ago and Dan/Slack is right on the money.
The first air victory was recorded by a P38F by Elza Shahan, while the P38Ds were used primarily for training roles.
Still, it would of been nice to have that potatoe gun the P38Ds had. :D
Yeah, the P-38D was only used as trainer but it did carry a 37mm Oldsmobile cannon instead of the 20mm Hispano. Heard the Oldsmobile cannon though was pretty crappy.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The G was the first to get the reinforced wing that allowed for the ferry tanks and larger bomb loads.
That, right there, is why we should have gotten the F instead of the G. The Jabo loads on the American fighters are the single biggest imballance in CT setups becuase unlike reality where the smaller loads were actually used most often, they are never used in AH.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That, right there, is why we should have gotten the F instead of the G. The Jabo loads on the American fighters are the single biggest imballance in CT setups becuase unlike reality where the smaller loads were actually used most often, they are never used in AH.
Pretty rare when Jabo loads are critical in the CT, though.
- oldman
-
These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.
-
Originally posted by rpm
These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.
That`s a pretty uberly broad statement. :D
Define "these guys". Heck go ahead and define "uber" as used here.
This part of "these guys" likes the idea of getting another plane from WWII. I`d much rather have this than I had the eye candy of late, so yea, I think it`s a "uber " idea.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Pretty rare when Jabo loads are critical in the CT, though.
- oldman
I disagree. They are critical in almost every setup, and whenever the USAAF or USN are involved, barring current early war setups, the Axis need two or three times as many pilots as the Allies to accomplish the same thing.
The fact is that 250lb and 500lb bombs were carried by fighters more often than 1,000lb bombs, but in AH how often do you see a P-51D, P-47D-25/D-40 or P-38 with anything less than 1,000lbers? Subbing the P-38G for the P-38F will simply move this same problem into early war setups.
Jackal1,
If that were true the original poster would have included the P-38G in his statement. He only included the P-38J, using an Airwarrior term for it. Care to guess why?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Subbing the P-38G for the P-38F will simply move this same problem into early war setups.
The P-38F carried 1000 lb bombs too.
-
I do not understand the ambiguity as to what the Mil and WEP power ratings are for the P-38L. This is the POH for the P-38L engine ratings.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38SEFC.gif)
Is it possible that certain units made it common practice to run at some degree of overboost? Sure is. It is also possible that every combat A/C in service was running at some degree of overboost. I have seen a thousand performance charts for the 190A with speeds far exceeding accepted performance. Do you really want to open than Can'O'worms?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
The P-38F carried 1000 lb bombs too.
Did it? I thought that it was only the Late Js and the Ls that could carry 2,000lbers.
If the F could carry 1000lbers, what was the strengthed hard points for larger bombs on the G? Could the G carry 2000lbers?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Did it? I thought that it was only the Late Js and the Ls that could carry 2,000lbers.
If the F could carry 1000lbers, what was the strengthed hard points for larger bombs on the G? Could the G carry 2000lbers?
From what I've read, the G was the first to be able to use the 300 gallon ferry tanks and to carry a 2000 pounder on a wing hard point.
That being said, I don't see where that was done much operationally.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I do not understand the ambiguity as to what the Mil and WEP power ratings are for the P-38L. This is the POH for the P-38L engine ratings.
Not sure what you mean by that. I was speaking of the early 38's when I mentioned the changing ratings as a source of confusion on the subject.
-
Can't wait to fly these 38's, just another ride for the MA to fear. :D
-
Originally posted by rpm
These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.
Kinda like the Ki-84?
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed that it can't race with the Mustangs, but I am watching the P-38 development and can't wait to see how they compare.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Jackal1,
If that were true the original poster would have included the P-38G in his statement. He only included the P-38J, using an Airwarrior term for it. Care to guess why?
Karnak, did ya take a wrong turn at Tulsa or what? :D
I am the original poster in this thread. The lead off topic is about the PJ. No mention of AW or any use of it`s terminology.
-
Pyro,
Actually I was referring to CVH's constant referance to 54"MAP not being the "real" mil power setting and 60"MAP not being the Combat setting.
I have never seen anything but crayon charts to show this performance and the constant reference to it should have some shread of proof to go with it other than annecdotes.
I would like to see some Allison documentation showing compression ratios, SFC or something that indicates higher performance ratings.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Karnak, did ya take a wrong turn at Tulsa or what? :D
I am the original poster in this thread. The lead off topic is about the PJ. No mention of AW or any use of it`s terminology.
Jakal,
"PJ" is AirWarrior terminolgy.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Pyro,
Actually I was referring to CVH's constant referance to 54"MAP not being the "real" mil power setting and 60"MAP not being the Combat setting.
I have never seen anything but crayon charts to show this performance and the constant reference to it should have some shread of proof to go with it other than annecdotes.
I would like to see some Allison documentation showing compression ratios, SFC or something that indicates higher performance ratings.
I don't know about that, the ratings are pretty clear from everything that I've ever seen, but there is something to that. The F30 engines used on the 38L had a revised crankshaft that allowed 3200 RPM. Allison cleared that engine for a higher WEP rating of 1725 HP using the increased RPM. However, the AAF never authorized that new rating for service use and retained the 60" 3000 RPM emergency rating.
-
Pyro,
There is some discussion of that in the JFC notes. More centered around the ability to overboost with supercharging and the advantages of higher compression ratio's with lower MAP yielding higher HP that lower compression ratios and higher MAP.
-
Originally posted by laz
Can't wait to fly these 38's, just another ride for the MA to fear. :D
Still can't hold a candle to the p40's :D
Can't wait for them either.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Jakal,
"PJ" is AirWarrior terminolgy.
Is it? I didn`t get the memo.
Next thing you will be telling me is that some guy named Jose ,who worked for CH ,worked out a problem concerning the analog CH pedals and a Logicrap stick that everyone said couldn`t be done. :D
Wish I had known where the term PJ originated when I was sitting in that ole biker bar in Greenville Texas years ago talking to that WWII pilot. I guess the old guy was confused when he was telling me about flying a T6 over Tulia and seeing that dot way, way up there and immediately recognizing it as ---------- a PJ.
I`m gonna have to see if that old uninformed dude is still alive and give him a good cussing for shining me on. :D
Man .... the old fugger had prolly been in AW. :D
You will have to excuse me because I know very little about these flying thingies.
'
'
''
'
'
On a more serious note, I believe that was one of the most enjoyable afternoons I ever experienced. Sitting there listening to this guy relive some of his lifetime memoriies, watching his eyes light up and the animation he went into when discussing things that went way beyond my ability to comprehend.
It was me, the pilot, "The Beast" errrr my wife and a good friend of mine that was a sniper in the Nam. (guy had more ventilation on his bod than Swiss cheese}. Love ya Doc, your my bro.
:D
Bad weather, Who Hit John and this company made for a more than worthy time.