Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: killnu on February 15, 2005, 01:14:50 PM
-
one of the most overmodeled fighters
this is from russian thread.
so, how is P38 "overmodeled"?:confused:
facts only, charts...etc.
maybe you should let somebody important know this.
-
Originally posted by killnu
this is from russian thread.
so, how is P38 "overmodeled"?:confused:
facts only, charts...etc.
maybe you should let somebody important know this.
It's overmodeled in the hands of folks like yourself KillnU. It's undermodeled when being flown by folks like me :)
Dan/Slack
-
I was being nasty. He peeved me by picking on two nearly non-existant aircraft in AH.
As to the P-38, I don't know if it is overmodeled. It strikes me as a little bit suspicious that a fighter with ~50lbs.sq.ft of wingloading can deploy some flaps and match the manuverability of a fighter with ~35lbs.sq.ft of wingloading and a better power-to-weight ratio.
Who knows, it might be possible, but I have doubts. It seems to me that it is rather optimistic.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I was being nasty. He peeved me by picking on two nearly non-existant aircraft in AH.
As to the P-38, I don't know if it is overmodeled. It strikes me as a little bit suspicious that a fighter with ~50lbs.sq.ft of wingloading can deploy some flaps and match the manuverability of a fighter with ~35lbs.sq.ft of wingloading and a better power-to-weight ratio.
Who knows, it might be possible, but I have doubts. It seems to me that it is rather optimistic.
Is it allied? well you know my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I was being nasty. He peeved me by picking on two nearly non-existant aircraft in AH.
As to the P-38, I don't know if it is overmodeled. It strikes me as a little bit suspicious that a fighter with ~50lbs.sq.ft of wingloading can deploy some flaps and match the manuverability of a fighter with ~35lbs.sq.ft of wingloading and a better power-to-weight ratio.
Who knows, it might be possible, but I have doubts. It seems to me that it is rather optimistic.
Nearly non existent? REALLY????
Well, then explain the 5 Tempests I met Saturday night, one of which augered, two of which went HO on me, and all of which took at least a couple of minutes, and help from a Spitfire or two to finally kill me. And those were not the only Tempests I saw Saturday night. I saw at least two or three on five sorties in a row against the Bish, who at the time also had superior numbers.
Further, explain the number of KI84's I see on a regular basis. I haven't been on more than 5 sorties this month where I haven't seen at least one or two KI84's.
You and your buddies just seem to be obsessed with getting nasty with people. You'll pardon me if I just get sick of putting up with you.
Regarding wingloading, and power to weight, come back to me when you learn about aspect ratio and wing profiles, especially combined with flaps. Also, go investigate prop efficiency and how multiple props are an advantage.
-
You had five people auger Tempests around you and you're whining about it? What was that at current prices? 300 perk points base price? :rofl Whine all you want, you're not going to convince us that the MA is teeming with Tempests.
The Ki-84? That one is more common that the Tempest, true. It is so common in fact that it actually gets 1/3rd the number of kills that the P-38L does (reference Tour 60). That is just so common that I can hardly handle the injustice of it. Imagine, a fighter regarded as one of the war's best getting a whole third of the number of kills as that perfection of a fighter, the P-38, does? It boggles one's mind.
You seem utterly convinced that the P-38 was the absolute best fighter of WWII and the fact that it doesn't absolutely dominate everything seems to gall you endlessly.
EDIT:
The P-38 as described by Captain Virgil Hilts (derived from reading his posts on the subject):
450+mph
4,500fpm+ climb
no compression issue (myth made up by a corrupt congressional comitee)
Rolls faster than an Fw190
Turns better than a Spitfire Mk V
Longer ranged than a P-51D
More durable than an Il-2
Easier to fly than an A6M2
100% viceless and impossible to stall (twin engines will do that you know)
The perfect prop fighter.
-
sarcasm is fun. :)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The perfect prop fighter.
Well ya got that right.
:p
-
Well, this poor P38G pilot just spent the last few minutes ducking the attention of 3, yes that's 3 Me262s. Thankfully they couldn't shoot and didn't work well together as I finally got out safe on the deck. But it's a less then pleasant spot to be in when you know the bad guy alone controls things and with three of them I should have been short work :)
Dan/Slack
-
EDIT:
The P-38 as described by Captain Virgil Hilts (derived from reading his posts on the subject):
450+mph
4,500fpm+ climb
no compression issue (myth made up by a corrupt congressional comitee)
Rolls faster than an Fw190
Turns better than a Spitfire Mk V
Longer ranged than a P-51D
More durable than an Il-2
Easier to fly than an A6M2
100% viceless and impossible to stall (twin engines will do that you know)
The perfect prop fighter.
This is called a troll.
And if he really thinks' this then he better start his homework early tonight.
After all. I beleive it was he, who told me that the P38 was produced with only 1 gun package. When I could provide countless documents that prove otherwise. But why bother? Ya know... Its his lose of information and a further gain in ignorance.
Then I told him I, ate slept and breathed P38's for a long time. "not like me" he replies. Yeah I can tell. :aok
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You had five people auger Tempests around you and you're whining about it? What was that at current prices? 300 perk points base price? :rofl Whine all you want, you're not going to convince us that the MA is teeming with Tempests.
The Ki-84? That one is more common that the Tempest, true. It is so common in fact that it actually gets 1/3rd the number of kills that the P-38L does (reference Tour 60). That is just so common that I can hardly handle the injustice of it. Imagine, a fighter regarded as one of the war's best getting a whole third of the number of kills as that perfection of a fighter, the P-38, does? It boggles one's mind.
You seem utterly convinced that the P-38 was the absolute best fighter of WWII and the fact that it doesn't absolutely dominate everything seems to gall you endlessly.
EDIT:
The P-38 as described by Captain Virgil Hilts (derived from reading his posts on the subject):
450+mph
4,500fpm+ climb
no compression issue (myth made up by a corrupt congressional comitee)
Rolls faster than an Fw190
Turns better than a Spitfire Mk V
Longer ranged than a P-51D
More durable than an Il-2
Easier to fly than an A6M2
100% viceless and impossible to stall (twin engines will do that you know)
The perfect prop fighter.
You sound bitter Karak :) Relax bud, it's all in fun.
Thought you might like this. Part of the cover of the 8th FG History.(couldn't fit the whole thing on the scanner) Shows part of an engagement between 2 Ki84s and 2 P38Ls. The Ls claimed em both :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1108517941_3884.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
EDIT:
The P-38 as described by Captain Virgil Hilts (derived from reading his posts on the subject):
450+mph
4,500fpm+ climb
no compression issue (myth made up by a corrupt congressional comitee)
Rolls faster than an Fw190
Turns better than a Spitfire Mk V
Longer ranged than a P-51D
More durable than an Il-2
Easier to fly than an A6M2
100% viceless and impossible to stall (twin engines will do that you know)
The perfect prop fighter.
Karnak, if you'd like to make this really nasty, I can certainly accomodate you. If you'd like to continue to make up lies for quotes from me and take them out of context, I can deal with that as well.
Here is the truth about what I've posted, taken directly from data I keep handy:
The following are the CORRECT stats for the Allison V-1710F-30. Write 'em down somewhere....
Ratings [minutes] Power RPM Manifold [in.Hg] Altitude [ft]
Normal (no limit) 1,100 2,600 44 30,000
Take Off (5) 1,475 3,000 54 SL
Military (15) 1,475 3,000 54 30,000
WEP (5) 1,725 3,000 60 28,700
The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state 414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30 Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and I'll go into that a little later. The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP. The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO. This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP. As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO. The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30 at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and F-117 programs.
Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo) Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.
The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed factory test logbooks): Max speed at sea level: 352 mph Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max. Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Now, nowhere did I EVER say the P-38 did not suffer from the effects of compression. I said that no less than a dozen well know and often quoted P-38 pilots, some of whom I still correspond with on a semi regular basis said this: "After the introduction of the dive flaps, it was no problem to roll over and follow an enemy plane down from 25,000 feet, before the dive flaps you'd compress. Below 20,000 feet you could follow the enemy down without undue drama, even without the dive flaps."
I said that at high speed the P-38J-25-Lo and later rolls faster than a P-51, and approaches the roll rate of the FW 190 and the P-47. Note I said approaches, not exceeds.
Never did I say the P-38 could out turn a Spitfire. I did say that some P-38 pilots were able to turn with some Spitfire pilots, at some speeds and in some cases.
The P-38J with leading edge wing tanks and drop tanks flown at the proper throttle settings does have more range than a P-51D.
I've NEVER compared the P-38 to an IL2 in any way. I did say that the P-38 was only exceeded in durability by the P-47.
I never said it was easier to fly than a Zero.
I never said it would not stall, nor that it would not ever spin. I said it had a very gentle stall, and was not prone to spins. I never said the P-38 was without vices.
You sir, are a fool and a liar, and an ankle humping loser as well.
As I said, if you want to get nasty, and you want to misquote me, or take my statements out of context, or just plain lie like the scum you are, I can deal with that as well. Bring it on little man, keep it up and you'll be glad the HTC staff will put a stop to this.
-
Originally posted by streetstang
This is called a troll.
And if he really thinks' this then he better start his homework early tonight.
After all. I beleive it was he, who told me that the P38 was produced with only 1 gun package. When I could provide countless documents that prove otherwise. But why bother? Ya know... Its his lose of information and a further gain in ignorance.
Then I told him I, ate slept and breathed P38's for a long time. "not like me" he replies. Yeah I can tell. :aok
I can certainly assure you that I've done my homework. I've been studying the P-38 for over 20 years. I've driven hundreds of miles just to study the planes, see the documents, and speak with the pilots. I still correspond with almost a dozen real P-38 pilots on a semi regular basis.
Oh, and with regards to the gun packages, show me your documentation that the P-38 was PRODUCED, by the FACTORY, in NUMBERS, as a REGULAR MODEL, and NOT a PROTOTYPE, with a gun package any different than either 4 50 caliber Browning machine guns and one 37MM cannon, or 4 50 caliber Browning machine guns and one 20MM cannon.
I'd certainly like to see production dates, numbers, and models. Nothing I've ever read anywhere shows any factual data with production dates, models, and production numbers, with anything but those two packages. There were several prototypes, and several field modifications, but not regular production that I have seen documentation for.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The Ls claimed em both :)
I bet the Ki's claimed both of the Ls too :)
-Sik
-
Savage,
Until the very post that I claimed I was being nasty in I have always refrained from such. You're ludicrous claim about the Tempest (which I don't really care about, but it was to big a lie to let you get away with) and the Ki-84 provoked that response. I should have held my my self control better.
You get very nasty, very fast with anybody who doubts anything about your claims regarding the P-38. I've read most of your posts on the subject and, in general, you come off as a rabid P-38 fan who cherry picks the data you base your claims on in order to make your pet fighter out to be the best you can. Barbi does this same thing in regards to the Bf109, and does you one better by also cherry picking the worst data for everything else.
My snide "derived" P-38 comment was meant to be over the top. The only thing I have actually seen you claim that is close to any of that is a 450mph top speed for the P-38L (or J). Nonetheless, that is the kind of P-38 that your posts project, a fighter with no significant flaws and an easy answer to everything.
Frankly, I'm just a bit tired of hearing the persecution complex from players who have one of the best air-to-air fighters in the game, and the single best aircraft in the game when looked at from a balanced perspective. One that has nearly none of the vices that the P-38 had in reality. The P-38 is a great fighter in AH and the persistant whines about it are really old.
Dan,
What were the relative skill levels of those P-38L and Ki-84 pilots? I'll bet the Americans were a whole heck of a lot better trained and more experienced.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Dan,
What were the relative skill levels of those P-38L and Ki-84 pilots? I'll bet the Americans were a whole heck of a lot better trained and more experienced. [/B]
It was the last combat of 5th Fighter Command on August 14, 1945 and the 35th FS of the 8th FG engaged Ki-84s of the 47 Sentai. They claimed 5 for one loss.
Postwar research shows that 2 Franks were shot down and one damaged. The Lightning that was lost overshot his target and was damaged by Ki84 fire when it passed. It went into a spin and the pilot was unable to get out although his canopy was seen to pop off just before he hit the water.
Dan/Slack
-
Karnak pretty much summed it up to the "T".
Savage, Captain Vrgl hiltsz, whoever you are, you obiviously know much more than the vast majority here. I bow down to you sir. Bow Down.
Edit:You sir, are a fool and a liar, and an ankle humping loser as well.
I can see why Karnak would place the type of judgment he has on you.
Oh well.
Time for you to Google up some more info Savage. :aok
-
Is this a private party? Or can anybody play?
I've brought my own liquor, honest! :D
-
Please guys, stop it! I can't take any more! You got me laughing so hard I almost spilt my beer! :rofl You can not be serious.:rofl Aces High aircraft modeled after the real aircraft in WWII! :rofl I haven't laughed this hard since I shot down a 262 while flying a Val...:lol Aces High!! Real Aircraft!! :rofl That's funny...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Savage,
Until the very post that I claimed I was being nasty in I have always refrained from such. You're ludicrous claim about the Tempest (which I don't really care about, but it was to big a lie to let you get away with) and the Ki-84 provoked that response. I should have held my my self control better.
You get very nasty, very fast with anybody who doubts anything about your claims regarding the P-38. I've read most of your posts on the subject and, in general, you come off as a rabid P-38 fan who cherry picks the data you base your claims on in order to make your pet fighter out to be the best you can. Barbi does this same thing in regards to the Bf109, and does you one better by also cherry picking the worst data for everything else.
My snide "derived" P-38 comment was meant to be over the top. The only thing I have actually seen you claim that is close to any of that is a 450mph top speed for the P-38L (or J). Nonetheless, that is the kind of P-38 that your posts project, a fighter with no significant flaws and an easy answer to everything.
Frankly, I'm just a bit tired of hearing the persecution complex from players who have one of the best air-to-air fighters in the game, and the single best aircraft in the game when looked at from a balanced perspective. One that has nearly none of the vices that the P-38 had in reality. The P-38 is a great fighter in AH and the persistant whines about it are really old.
Like I said, if you'd read the post I made afterwards, the example of the Tempest was nothing more than a mistake on my part, I meant Typhoon. I typed Tempest because I was busy and in a hurry, and I had Saturday night on my mind, where I did actually see a huge number of Tempests ( I saw at least 20 or so Saturday night, in groups of 3 to 5). Oh, and you might not read this, but in case you do, go back and look, I said ONE Tempest augered, two went HO, along with one Spit, and it took those six after the first augered about 5 or 6 turns to get me when I was already low and slow. I meant to mention Typhoons because about every other flight or so for a couple of months I saw the Typhoon used the same way the LA7 is often used, and in pairs and in groups, with the same tactics. HO, cherry pick, and run, just happens to annoy me a great deal, and those planes are the ones I see used that way.
You may not be seeing the same planes I see when I fly. I do happen to see a lot of KI84's and Typhoons, the Typhoon being a recent thing. It is not my problem that you don't face the same planes I seem to. I just happen to see what I see when I fly. And it happens to be that I see more KI84s than you do. Granted, they are not nearly so preveleant as Spitfires and LA7s. On the other hand, it seems to have a pretty decent set of guns, and there are those in this game who will take a plane that has decent speed, good acceleration, and decent maneuverability, combined with a set of guns that works well HO, and fly it just that way. I have seen 1 or 2 KI84s out of 10 or so planes on most hops. Sometimes I don't see any. Unfortunately, 4 out of 5 of the ones I do see will HO and cherry pick in the same way that 4 out of 5 LA7s will. It is a good plane that takes skill and practice to learn to really fight in, and it annoys me to see it used poorly.
I never claimed 450MPH for the P-38L either, but don't let that stop you. Read the post above, it comes from Warren Bodie, and the data is from Lockheed, it is not "cherry picked". It's 442 to 444 MPH at critical altitude and it comes directly from Lockheed logs. Since a lot of planes are modeled with factory data, I figure it is a valid comparison number. The only P-38 I ever said could exceed 450 in level flight was the P-38K, it was a prototype, not a production model, it had even more power than the L and better props. It was never produced and I never asked that it be modeled.
I only respond to people the way they respond to me. You debate me in a calm rational manner, and I'll respond in kind. Take cheap shots and spew crap, and I'll get nasty if that's what you want. If you start off with a nasty shot at me, I'll reply that way.
Take note of the P-38 spin recovery thread posted by Oldman. The ONLY thing I posted was a brief synopsis of the spin recovery section of Lockheeds test pilot logs and articles, followed by a verbatim post of exactly what was there. The next thing you know, and you'll see this if you look, along comes the same exact crew that shows up in ANY discussion about the P-38, and they start the same thing. Not one word was said about the plane being modeled wrong, no one was campaigning for any changes, there was a discussion on how you are supposed to recover a spin following a stall. Look what happened and look who started it. If you can't see how that started, I can't help you, and we've nothing further to discuss. If you want to blame me for that, go right ahead, I know the truth, and the rest I don't give a damn about. That is merely the most recent example.
Yes, I am a P-38 fan, a hardcore P-38 fan. I've had P-38 models since I was 6. My uncle and my aunt worked for Consolidated Vultee in Nashville during the war when they built 113 of them. My father was in the USAAC in the SouthWest Pacific, he worked on them. I've been fortunate enough to meet a lot of the pilots who flew them, and I still swap emails with some of the few who survive. I did a lot of research for a couple of projects I was invited to join regarding McGuire and a coupe of others.
I have no persecution complex. I don't think or claim that HTC has a grudge or a conspiracy against the plane. I disagree with a couple of their positions. I don't like autoretract, I don't like the way it is setup, and I think the P-38 accelerates a little slow. I understand their position on autoretract, I don't think it is intended to handicap the P-38 in particular. I think the accleration is off because the power is low, and the power is low because of the reduced top speed rating they get from the USAAC/USAAF settings. I think those are the settings they chose, not because they have a bias against the plane, but because they are the most widely published and they are USAAC/USAAF accepted, despite the fact that I know pilots and crewchiefs who routinely used the Lockheed settings.
Regarding what you're tired of, I'm just as tired of the same people coming in to EVERY thread regarding the P-38 and starting the same crap they always start. You can't even discuss stall recovery without the same tired B.S. spewed by the same people. Remember that the next time you decide to get nasty.
-
Originally posted by streetstang
Karnak pretty much summed it up to the "T".
Savage, Captain Vrgl hiltsz, whoever you are, you obiviously know much more than the vast majority here. I bow down to you sir. Bow Down.
Edit:
I can see why Karnak would place the type of judgment he has on you.
Oh well.
Time for you to Google up some more info Savage. :aok
Hey, I asked you for your data on the P-38 production gun packages and you have never produced. Can you or can you not produce?
I never asked anyone to bow down to anything. My data doesn't come from google either.
Karnak can judge me any way he likes. I'll treat him or anyone else exactly the way they want to treat me.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800
(http://www.death-valley.us/modules/Forums/images/smiles/eek3.gif)
-
Karnak,
Upon further reflection, perhaps my reply to you was too harsh and nasty. I may have also been to quick to judge you to be the same as the bunch who feels they MUST insert themselves in every thread about the P-38. I get just as tired of them as you do of anyone else, including me.
You take my comments as an indictment upon certain planes. They are not. They are simply a comment on the choices people who fly in a certain manner make in planes.
I have no grudge against any plane. I respect any plane that is well flown by a competent pilot, or at least is flown as well as possible by a pilot, no matter how good he is, who makes an attempt at actually using the plane for something other than a cannon equipped battering ram.
I do not dislike the KI84, nor even the LA7. Both are fine aircraft, I do not wish to see them perked, handicapped, or otherwise restricted. I do get annoyed by the segment of players who only use them to HO and cherry pick. It is not the plane at all, but rather the player who chooses it. It does happen that a certain segment of the player base does choose those planes. That is however an indictment of the player and not the plane. I could say the same about the player who only uses the P-38 as a dumptruck to carry ordinance. Or the Spitfire jockey that jumps into a fight to yank and bank and go HO as much as any LA7. There are those who fly the P-51 or the 190 or the Typhoon to pork bases and run away (I suppose porking is a valid mission, I don't do it, and I don't run when I attack a base, although I will not fight 5:1 odds given the choice and chance to do otherwise).
I do in fact enjoy a good fight with a well flown KI84, and there are those who fly it well and best me at least 7 out of 10 times. Them I respect. I have no quarrel with their choice of plane. They've learned to fly and fight, and learned the way to use the plane. The same applies to any plane, and any pilot.
-
Savage,
No worries. I was being unpleasant, for which I appologize.
I do like the P-38 and think it was one of the great fighters of WWII. I don't think it's performance was quite where you put it, but that's fine.
As to what I see, well, lots of La-7s, Spitfires, N1K2s and P-51s with the other stuff al mixed in. Last night I saw two F4Us, two Ki-61s, two P-47s, an A-20, a B-24 formation, a Bf109, a P-38 and an Il-2 in addition to lots of the four I mentioned. That is about typical. Regarding HOs, I see them about evenly from all types, though with the unmanuverable fighters with heavy firepower being more likely to do so. I've personally never found that the ones people whine about most, La-7s, N1K2-Js, Spitfires, are any more likely to do it that the ones the whiners usually proclaim they fly.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Savage,
No worries. I was being unpleasant, for which I appologize.
I do like the P-38 and think it was one of the great fighters of WWII. I don't think it's performance was quite where you put it, but that's fine.
As to what I see, well, lots of La-7s, Spitfires, N1K2s and P-51s with the other stuff al mixed in. Last night I saw two F4Us, two Ki-61s, two P-47s, an A-20, a B-24 formation, a Bf109, a P-38 and an Il-2 in addition to lots of the four I mentioned. That is about typical. Regarding HOs, I see them about evenly from all types, though with the unmanuverable fighters with heavy firepower being more likely to do so. I've personally never found that the ones people whine about most, La-7s, N1K2-Js, Spitfires, are any more likely to do it that the ones the whiners usually proclaim they fly.
Tempers and the lack of patience are a part of human nature, and I find you to be no more or less human and prone to such faults as I or anyone else. I am no doubt just as guilty as anyone.
I should not have made the personal insults I made towards you, and I regret that, and apologize for it.
It is also quite normal to disagree on such things as we have. I respect an honest disagreement and a civil debate, and I enjoy them. It is sad that they sometimes turn ugly, often for no real reason. And sometimes because of the interference of others.
I'm certain that different flying styles, along with flying in different groups and in different areas, leads to seeing different things. That too is to be expected. I do see what you did last night as well. I find lately that I do tend to be more varied in what I try. I find myself in ship guns, shore batteries, and GV's more often. I fly different kinds of sorties more often as well.
SALUTE
-
i cant imagine having to identify all the a/c i shoot down.
honestly, for me its just :
"red icon-shoot-boom-youshotdownXXX#1"
chill out fellas, the P38 was almost as awesome in real life as it is in AH im sure. I mean look at it, got to be one of the greatest looking warbirds from that era.
stop arguing and get fighting. :aok
-
Holy long posts batman.. my brain hurts and I don't think I can do math anymore... :(
If anyone needs me I'll be lying down.. too much verbage on this thread. :D
-
You don't really have to keep track of em...
Last month, out of 141 kills, 91 were Spit/Nik/P51/La7/P38. That is 64.5%. I did see a fair amount of Doruns and Tiffies, they mainly ran away. Similarly, I saw many more El gays than I killed.. they mostly just ran away.
Out of 31 deaths, 19 came from the above planes.. 61%.
For me anyway, those were as common as stink on ****, with everything else being comparatively rare.
-
Was the 1725 hp rating ever authorised in service? Didn't it require different fuel (100/150 or 115/145)?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Was the 1725 hp rating ever authorised in service? Didn't it require different fuel (100/150 or 115/145)?
The USAAC/USAAF never officially authorized it. Lockheed officials including test pilots informed the men in the field about it and how to do it.
The fuel issues were a problem in England, but not elsewhere for the most part. Fuel in England was so bad that Doolittle had to go to his peacetime employer Shell to get decent fuel.
-
The USAAC/USAAF never officially authorized it.
So the performance figures you wuoted are only from Lockheed tests, not official USAAF ones?
The fuel issues were a problem in England, but not elsewhere for the most part. Fuel in England was so bad that Doolittle had to go to his peacetime employer Shell to get decent fuel.
Never seemed to affect other aircraft.
But the question about 100/150 or 115/145 remains. Did the increased 1725 hp rating require it? (100/150 and 115/145 are not simply "better quality" fuel, they have higher octane ratings than the standard 100/130)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
So the performance figures you wuoted are only from Lockheed tests, not official USAAF ones?
The USAAF may or may not have tested the P-38 at those settings. The fact remains, Lockheed tested the plane at those settings, and certified it. GM/Allison tested the engines at those settings, and certified it. The USAAC/USAAF saw the tests, saw the results, and was aware it could be done. Further, units in the field used the settings.
Never seemed to affect other aircraft.
[/B]
Oh, but it did. P-51's had the same problems, fouled plugs, detonation, hammered rod bearings, cracked heads, blown head gaskets, and a host of others. The early return percentage for the P-51 at the time was as high or nearly as high as that of the P-38. Further, the P-38 was in fact being flown at the wrong settings for RPM and MAP, and was not being properly maintained, both problems due to a failure of the 8th AF to get the correct information to the pilots and the crews. THAT was the main reason the USAAC/USAAF did not officially aprrove the higher power settings.
Below find Tony Levier's report on the ETO and their problems, it is a direct verbatim copy of his report as it appears in Lockheed's files:
Report on P-38s in the ETO, by Tony Levier.
“Having just returned from a four month mission to England on 29 May 1944 where I had been testing and demonstrating some of the new improvements on our P-38J’s, I filed the following report:”
Immediately upon arriving in England, I proceeded to the 55th FG HQ at Nuthamstead, an airbase in East Anglia, north of London, where conditions were pretty grim as far as their P-38’s were concerned. They had just received their first P-38J’s, and had no operational information on them. Their lack of information concerning correct power combinations was appalling.
For combat missions some pilots were using anywhere from 2000RPM to 3000RPM with whatever manifold pressure that would giver them their desired air speed. Some of these pilots were blowing up their engines with high manifold pressure and critically low RPM, while others were running out of gas and failing to complete missions because of such power combinations for continual cruise at 2800RPM with 24” of manifold pressure. Many returned with hardly more than a cupful of gas remaining in their tanks, while others were forced to bail out over enemy territory.
The reason they were cruising at 2600, 2800 and even 3000RPM was that somewhere along the line they had been taught to use high RPM and low manifold pressure. They were under the impression that should they get jumped by a Jerry they could get their power faster if they already had their engines running at high RPM.
The fact is you can get your power quicker if you have low RPM and high boost which gives you a high er turbosupercharger speed. With turbochargers putting out high boost you only have to increase your engine RPM to get your desired power.
Rather than add to their confusion with power curves and range charts we devised the following rule of thumb for their long range missions. It is simple and easy to remember and insures maximum engine efficiency/fuel economy: USE 2300RPM AND 36” MANIFOLD PRESSURE AS THE MAXIMUM FOR AUTO LEAN AND CRUISE CONDITIONS. IN REDUCING POWER FROM THIS SETTING, REDUCE ˝” TO 1” FOR EACH 100RPM; FOR GOING ABOVE THIS SETTING PUT YOUR MIXTURE IN AUTO RICH AND INCREASE THE MANIFOLD PRESSURE 2” FOR EACH 100RPM.
After using this rule the boys marveled at their increased range. Some were returning from 4 hour missions with as much as 150 to 200 gallons of fuel left. Quite a bit more than the cupfuls they had been returning with.
The day after I arrived at another base in England some P-38 pilots who had been escorting Forts over mainland Europe reported a “sort of engine trouble”.
When pinned down they said their engines had been surging and momentarily cutting out while they were flying at altitude under reduced power. The passed it off saying, “it’s probably caused by some extra low octane gas.”
But after further discussion with the boys I suddenly remembered a series of tests we had run back home during flight test operations for proper turbosupercharger settings. As I recalled, the symptoms were very similar.
So I obtained permission from the 55th FG CO to test a P-38 at altitude for proper turbosupercharger operation, and sure enough, the turbosupercharger on the left engine was so rigged that the resulting backpressure and high turbosupercharger wheel speed caused the airflow to the engine to surge, resulting in erratic operation and inability to pull power.
Upon landing, I reported the trouble and recommended that each Lightning driver be given the following procedure for checking his ’38 at altitude for proper turbosupercharger operation: At 30K feet set your RPM at 2600RPM and 37” manifold pressure and back off slowly on the power down to 10 to 15” manifold pressure. While doing this, fix your eyes on the manifold pressure and note if there is the slightest engine failure or surging. Record the exact manifold pressure at which this surging occurs.
Now repeat the process beginning with 2300RPM and 37” manifold pressure , and again record the boost at which surging occurs. (At this lower RPM it should occur 2 or 3” higher.)
If, after you’ve completed this procedure, either of the recorded manifold pressures are above 22”, it indicated the turbosupercharger regulator is set improperly. Tell your mechanic the boost at which the roughness occurred and he will make the necessary adjustments.
The above mentioned problems are why the P-38 supposedly "seemed" to have problems other planes did not. It was not the fault of the plane, or the engines, but rather that it was not being properly flown and maintained, not due to the pilots and crews, but due to them not being properly informed.
But the question about 100/150 or 115/145 remains. Did the increased 1725 hp rating require it? (100/150 and 115/145 are not simply "better quality" fuel, they have higher octane ratings than the standard 100/130)
Flown at the proper settings, and with the better quality fuel available after Doolittle got Shell involved, the L model could use the maximum power settings as proscribed by Lockheed and GM/Allison
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The P-38 as described by Captain Virgil Hilts (derived from reading his posts on the subject):
450+mph
4,500fpm+ climb
no compression issue (myth made up by a corrupt congressional comitee)
Rolls faster than an Fw190
Turns better than a Spitfire Mk V
Longer ranged than a P-51D
More durable than an Il-2
Easier to fly than an A6M2
100% viceless and impossible to stall (twin engines will do that you know)
A few historical facts supported by both documentation and the word of the men who flew both the P-38 and P-51 in combat:
1) When employing the full rating authorized by Allison (1,725 hp), the P-38L was able to pull 440 mph at critical altitude. The USAAF de-rated the engines to 1,600 hp for increased reliability. Nonetheless, Allison tech reps assisted crew chiefs in rigging for full power rating.
2) Climb rate with 1,725 hp per engine was in the range of 4,300 to 4,600 fpm depending upon fuel load.
3) Compression was always an issue. The dive recovery flaps made compression managable, but did not change its nature. If you didn't deploy the flaps, they were of no value.
4) Above 325 mph, the P-38J-25-LO and all P-38Ls did have a faster sustained rate of roll than the Fw 190. Inertia did have an effect on initial roll rate. But, once rolling, late P-38s were the fastest rolling fighters of the war above 350 mph (thanks to hydraulic boosting of the ailerons, full deflection was possible at very high speeds).
5) P-38s could not out-turn Spitfire Mk.Vs. They didn't need to. Their acceleration and vertical capability offset the Spit's low-speed agility.
6) With 310 gallon drop tanks, the P-38 did out-range the P-51D. However, this required a cruise speed substantially lower than that of the P-51D.
7) With twin engines, the P-38 had a built in safety factor unmatched by any single-engine aircraft. IL-2s were heavily armored to resist ground fire. They were not well protected against air to air fire from the rear quarters. Yet, airframe durability favors the IL-2 because of its simple and robust construction with few vital systems to be damaged.
8) P-38s were complex aircraft requiring extensive training to master. It was not easy to fly.
9) Stall characteristics of the P-38 were far more gentle than any other American fighter.
My regards,
Widewing