Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on May 12, 2005, 12:43:43 AM
-
If you guys haven't been to Widewing's website, you're sure missing out on a lot of fantastic pilot stories and other warbird information. Found this little article and found it to be quite interesting and pretty much confirms what P-38 pilots have said about the plane's size and shape.
Basically, while a large aircraft, its shape and size wasn't all that much of a disadvantage.
The P-38: Is Size And Shape A Disadvantage? (http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html)
ack-ack
-
Read this one a long time ago - it's a good article.
However, IMO it's a bit 'hard-pressed' to reach to the conclusions that the advantages of its size and shape was enough to neutralize the disadvantages such a large airframe held.
Especially when it basically comes down to "it was large and unique, so it was easily identifiable... so friendly fire won't happen much, and that's a situational advantage"... geez, can't help but smile at this one.
Especially when the author clearly leaves out on purpose any direct comments on its advantages/disadvantages regarding to its size/shape during combat, in a plane vs plane perspective.. I won't say its biased, but it certainly doesn't tell everything about the plane.
-
It also matches what P-38 pilot said about the plane. Yes, above and below it presented a large target and it's shape was very distinctive but from the the sides, front and back it present a very small, thin profile. Much smaller than that of any other USAAC fighter.
ack-ack
-
LOL from the front?
A 50 foot wingspan and three fuselage sections..
Come on Ack Ack..
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
If you guys haven't been to Widewing's website, you're sure missing out on a lot of fantastic pilot stories and other warbird information. Found this little article and found it to be quite interesting and pretty much confirms what P-38 pilots have said about the plane's size and shape.
Basically, while a large aircraft, its shape and size wasn't all that much of a disadvantage.
The P-38: Is Size And Shape A Disadvantage? (http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html)
ack-ack
You'd think Widewing was a P38 fan :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
shape & size a disadvantage against your stereotypical buck toothed four eyed jap as they dont see well & are poor shots
-
shape & size a disadvantage against your stereotypical buck toothed four eyed jap as they dont see well & are poor shots
Since even an one-eyed pilot swatted down P-38s regularly in an inferior plane to become one of Japan's greatest aces.. perhaps that's not saying much :D :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL from the front?
A 50 foot wingspan and three fuselage sections..
Come on Ack Ack..
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Fighterprofile.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Since even an one-eyed pilot swatted down P-38s regularly in an inferior plane to become one of Japan's greatest aces.. perhaps that's not saying much :D :D
Actually, there are no records of Sakai shooting down, let alone engaging any P-38s while he was in the SouthWest Pacific (based in Rabaul, New Guinea). IIRC, the P-38 didn't get to the New Guinea area until early fall of 1942 and by that time, Saburo Sakai was recovering in Japan after taking a bullet to the head from a Dauntless. Think that was either mid or late summer of '42. He may have faced some in the Philippines during the last year of the war since the P-38s often flew long range missions to the Philippines (McGuire was on one such mission when he died). But if he did, it was not in the Zero. He may have ran into some over Iwo Jima in late '44 but again, if he did it wasn't in the Zero.
When he was in Rabaul, he probably encountered planes like the Aussie/Kiwi P-40's, USAAC P-40s and P-39s, USN F4F's and other early war carrier planes.
This has always been one of my favorite quotes about the P-38 from a Japanese pilot.
But the two P-38s chasing me had an incredible climbing power. They stood on their tails and were catching up to my Type 3. I felt shivers down my spine. I have never had this experinece before. P-40s, P-39s, F4Fs, and even F4Us could not follow the Type 3 in steep climb. But this twin boomed P-38 was following me with ease!
Yoshio Matsumoto, 103 Independent Chutai, describing his first encounter with the P-38
ack-ack
-
One eyed must be an advantage because then you don't have to close one eye to aim :D
Perk one eyed pilots!!!
-
One eyed must be an advantage because then you don't have to close one eye to aim
Perk one eyed pilots!!!
Yup!
Especially when your plane has a good 'ol fashioned ring-and-bead!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
One eyed must be an advantage because then you don't have to close one eye to aim :D
Perk one eyed pilots!!!
I say it's a disadvantage because then you can't close one eye to aim.
-
On the other hand, wasn't it Adolf Galland himself who said P-38 was the easiest of Allied fighters to shoot down - the big size and easily identifiable shape being big bonuses to German pilots in attack?
-
Originally posted by Grendel
On the other hand, wasn't it Adolf Galland himself who said P-38 was the easiest of Allied fighters to shoot down - the big size and easily identifiable shape being big bonuses to German pilots in attack?
And it was also Galland that ran for his life from a P-38 flown by Lowell.
ack-ack
-
Hi Ack-Ack,
Thanks for the link, quite an interesting article!
I'd say the biggest plus of the P-38 shape was its small visible fin area - that's really helps becoming "invisible".
What I'd emphasize a bit more than Widewing did is that visual signature is aspect-dependend, and the P-38 has some low signature aspects (viewed from the same altitude, assuming horizontal flight) and some high signature aspects (mostly when both engines/tail booms are silhouetted at the same time).
I'd also add that while the P-38 had a fairly low visual signature for a plane of its size, it was pretty large to begin with :-)
With regard to the identification aspect, I'm with Widewing in considering it as an advantage, especially considering that it also helps section/flight cohesion if you can tell immediately who's one of your buddies and who's not.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'd say it's high wingloading, slow initial roll and roll inertia as well as low mach number were probably it greatest disadvantages.
Also I believe that scale is a little deceptive. The smaller the picture the less obvious the size becomes. I have seen an F4U, P-51, P-40 and P-47 parked in close proximity. The difference is staggering. You can't tell at all from those drawings what the scale really is.
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow02/duxoct/breitling.jpg)
-
this game/forum makes me believe that the p-38 was the greatest thing.. evar.. had no vices, was flown by all the best pilots and was the most feared aircraft of all time.
L33T!
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Fighterprofile.jpg)
ack-ack
What exactly is thios supposed to show?
Lets see:
P38 biggest wing planform & top profile
P38 biggest frontal area and most things sticking out
P38 longest fuselage
P38 least tall - oh mighty that sure makes the shape advantegeus!
-
Originally posted by Furball
this game/forum makes me believe that the p-38 was the greatest thing.. evar.. had no vices, was flown by all the best pilots and was the most feared aircraft of all time.
L33T!
Hmmm...strange. None of us have implied that at all. The P-38 was a good all around plane, a jack of all trades so to speak. While not a master in one area, it did everything well. That's something not many other planes can claim. And this thread in no way even tries to claim superiority of the P-38 over any other plane.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What exactly is thios supposed to show?
Lets see:
P38 biggest wing planform & top profile
P38 biggest frontal area and most things sticking out
P38 longest fuselage
P38 least tall - oh mighty that sure makes the shape advantegeus!
It shows exactly what that article was saying. If you look at the profile of the P-38 compared to the P-47 and P-51, it's relatively small considering it's large size.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
it's relatively small considering it's large size.
ack-ack
:rofl
Come on, thats pretty hillarious...
-
Honestly honestly, the only thing 'small' I see in that pic is the small rudder/stab section, and a very slim view from the side.
The total area of it's frontal profile seems to even about as large as the frontal profiles of the P-47 and the P-51 combined....although it's just a quick eye-estimation.
-
erace the props, then count the individual pixels each plane occupies in the front view......let us know your results ;)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
erace the props, then count the individual pixels each plane occupies in the front view......let us know your results ;)
Here you go
(http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/fshapeanalysis.GIF)
the col order in the table is according to the numbers in the pic
to make it more clear here the explicit values:
ac_____frotal __ side____ top
P38 __ 2931 ___ 4300 __ 15948
P47 __ 2253 ___ 5721 __ 12677
P51 __ 1688 ___ 4523 __ 9698
109 __ 1542 ___ 3698
no scale check of the drawing was made
It should be noted that the P-38 looks slim from the side, BUT consider that the booms are not in the rotation center, that means even under SLIGHT angles deviation you begin to see both booms (one moves up, one down in a rotation) what in turn means a huge increase of visible area.
niklas
-
Now add a bit of positive AOA for level flight and what an enemy sees from the six of a P38 is a massive shape compared to any of the other planes.
Niklas, which system did you use to calculate the number of pixels? it seems pretty decent to estimate relative flat areas also and drag.
-
Also keep in mind that the empty weight of the P-38L was 14,100LBS. That is as much as a loaded P-47.
That is a big bird, I am not sure those drawings reflect that.
-
Why it's the profile of a P51K ?
It's a typo or the K and D have the same shape/silhouette ?
-
From AH help:
"The P-51K was a Dallas built version of the P-51D. The only other difference between the two was the use of an Aeroproducts propeller on the P-51K."
-
But, the 38 has the advantage of a huge hole in the middle for bullets to pass through. :D
-
Sorry guys. I love the 38.
But claiming "its shape and size wasn't all that much of a disadvantage" is ..errm.. pushing it.
-
Thank TimRas.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Hmmm...strange. None of us have implied that at all. The P-38 was a good all around plane, a jack of all trades so to speak. While not a master in one area, it did everything well. That's something not many other planes can claim. And this thread in no way even tries to claim superiority of the P-38 over any other plane.
ack-ack
just messing with ya ;)
-
Think the "wetted area" is supposed to be equivalent to the total surface area - anyone have those?
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
But, the 38 has the advantage of a huge hole in the middle for bullets to pass through. :D
:rofl - that's a good 1
-
Hi Niklas,
>the col order in the table is according to the numbers in the pic
to make it more clear here the explicit values:
Thanks, that's good work! :-)
One thing I'd like to point out is that when it comes to long-range visibility, total area is not really the decisive factor.
Just imagine a power cable, very long but very thin - it's visible only at much shorter ranges than a hot air balloon of the same total (projected) area.
To account for that effect, I'd suggest to try and fit circles into the silhouettes and compare the size of these circles.
By that metric, the frontal visibility of the P-38 comes out a bit lower than by including the area of details that the human eye can't resolve anyway.
(The human eye is incredibly complex, and this is just a quick approximation I dreamt up for long range visibility :-)
Like with stealth technology and radar cross section, aspect angle is everything. No doubt the P-38 appears large from some aspects, but from other aspects it belies its size, offering a surprisingly low visual signature.
The simulations I have seen so far are nowhere close to real life in portraying extreme range visibility, but I've to admit that I'm out of touch with the latest developments :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Seeing the other formation 1st was an important factor in WW2 combat, and all twin engined fighters (P-38, Bf 110, Me 210, Ki-46, Mosquito VI... ect), had the disadvantage of being larger than their single engined opponents, and usually, had profiles that were easily identified at longer ranges (P-51 and 109 might be mistaken at several miles off, P-38 and 109 will likely not).
That being said, the twin engined fighters had some advantages of their own, like 2 engines to get home on, and often better ranges. They were invariably larger than single engined fighters, thats kind of a no-brainer.
Its a design tradeoff, all major air forces deployed twin engined fighters in WW2 with mixed results.
So to answer the question, "yes" , to both.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
And it was also Galland that ran for his life from a P-38 flown by Lowell.
ack-ack
What LW pilot wasn't running for his life in 44-45? :D
-
What LW pilot wasn't running for his life in 44-45?
Dead ones.
Just like the guys who usually have a lot to say about why they died, in the MA :D
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Niklas,
>the col order in the table is according to the numbers in the pic
to make it more clear here the explicit values:
Thanks, that's good work! :-)
One thing I'd like to point out is that when it comes to long-range visibility, total area is not really the decisive factor.
Just imagine a power cable, very long but very thin - it's visible only at much shorter ranges than a hot air balloon of the same total (projected) area.
To account for that effect, I'd suggest to try and fit circles into the silhouettes and compare the size of these circles.
By that metric, the frontal visibility of the P-38 comes out a bit lower than by including the area of details that the human eye can't resolve anyway.
(The human eye is incredibly complex, and this is just a quick approximation I dreamt up for long range visibility :-)
Like with stealth technology and radar cross section, aspect angle is everything. No doubt the P-38 appears large from some aspects, but from other aspects it belies its size, offering a surprisingly low visual signature.
The simulations I have seen so far are nowhere close to real life in portraying extreme range visibility, but I've to admit that I'm out of touch with the latest developments :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The avgerage eyeball that does not require corrective lenses has a resolution limit of about 180 arcseconds (although the lens is about 7mm, so the theoretical limit is 14 arc seconds at visual wavelengths) - read this in astronomy journals & tested it in R/L situation, very accurate.
Ever read of binoculars being used in the cockpit of a fighter in combat (other than P-61, which had built in ones to aid nightvision)? It could have proved very valuable for long range A/C identification of what was just a spec to the naked eye, if it was possible to use them effectively.
-
Hi Bunch,
>The avgerage eyeball that does not require corrective lenses has a resolution limit of about 180 arcseconds (although the lens is about 7mm, so the theoretical limit is 14 arc seconds at visual wavelengths) - read this in astronomy journals & tested it in R/L situation, very accurate.
Hm, I'm familiar with the figure of 60 arcseconds resolution, but that's for "optimum conditions". Maybe it's the low-light, low-constrast situation typical for astromical observations that accounts for the difference to your figure?
Other figures I just looked up:
- Angle difference required to see two dots as distinct: 120 arcseconds
- Optimum resolution when discerning parallel lines: 10 - 20 arcseconds
It appears that the eye does some really advanced image processing, which accounts for the spread in these figures :-)
I guess due to the different properties and distribution of rods and cones, imaging resolution is a rather complex topic with the human eye anyway :-)
>Ever read of binoculars being used in the cockpit of a fighter in combat (other than P-61, which had built in ones to aid nightvision)? It could have proved very valuable for long range A/C identification of what was just a spec to the naked eye, if it was possible to use them effectively.
I think the use of (hand-held) night glasses was pretty common on Luftwaffe night fighters at least. If they were incorporated into the P-61, I'd assume hand-held glasses probably had been in use with Allied night fighters, too. (Do you have details on the P-61 system? For example, could it be used to sight the guns?)
With day fighters, the only one I'm aware of is (again :-) Galland, who had a monocular telescope mounted through the windscreen of his Emil. It was placed in the lower right-hand corner of the windscreen, so I think he used it only for idendification (as you pointed out) and not as a sighting device. (I believe this must have been an early Emil without an armour glass windscreen.)
As Galland's left eye was particularly bad due injuries suffered in a flying accident, maybe he was looking for a means to improve his eye sight. On the other hand, he could simply have been trying to "secure all available advantages" in classic Boelcke fashion :-)
The Luftwaffe experimented with magnifying telescopic sights that combined their image with that of a regular reflector sight in one neat installation, but though they seem to have developed it into a production-ready unit, it was never introduced into service.
With regard to modern fighters, I've been told that F-15 pilots often carry "hunting scopes" for identification. I thought this referred to monocular telescopic sights as used with hunting rifles, but now I realize they might actually have referred to binoculars.
Perhaps an English speaker with hunting experience can decode this term for us? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I think that no twin had a better record than the Mossie.
Depends on useage of course. The 110 had a rather good record I belive, if the BoB is excluded.
But there was probably no better twin than the P38, - well, the Hornet maybe, but that doesn't count.....
AFAIK the P38 was the only one that could cruise on 1 engine without loosing alt.
-
the "two dots as distinct" as distince number is what is important in astronomy, & 120" is certainly in the neighborhood of 180". As for low light, one may expect the eye would perform better for resolution in that circumstance, as the diameter of the objective lens is largest then (up to 7mm). In daylight you probably would have < 3mm to work with (theoretical limt of resolution [=seperated with the half height of the gaussian blob that makes up the dot] roughly 30 - 35")...astronomy targets are surprisingly high contrast if no too dim, due to the dimness of the background....but dont get me started
-
Does the optomitrasts convention come with a coupon for the buffet? :)
-
Hi Bunch,
>the "two dots as distinct" as distince number is what is important in astronomy, & 120" is certainly in the neighborhood of 180".
Ah, thanks, that makes sense, and I'm glad to see our figures are in the same ballpark :-)
>As for low light, one may expect the eye would perform better for resolution in that circumstance, as the diameter of the objective lens is largest then (up to 7mm). In daylight you probably would have < 3mm to work with (theoretical limt of resolution [=seperated with the half height of the gaussian blob that makes up the dot] roughly 30 - 35")...
Interesting, that's something I hadn't taken into account. I assume the better resolution at higher contrast must be a function of the sensor (rods and cones) then and not of the optics.
I'd explain the resolution of 10 - 20" for parallel lines, which is in excess of the optical resolution, as an artifact of the brain just assuming its dealing with parallel lines and providing the illusion of good resolution.
>astronomy targets are surprisingly high contrast if no too dim, due to the dimness of the background....
Damn, very good point there! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
ahh, i forgot the rods/cones issue. if you're seeing with rods you are certainly not seeing as well detailed an image as with cones, unless looking at a low contrast object
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Niklas, which system did you use to calculate the number of pixels? it seems pretty decent to estimate relative flat areas also and drag.
Itīs a professional industrial vision software that you wonīt find on the public market. At the end itīs just pixel counting based on a enclosed contour with holes. And it should be obvious that the resolution of the shapes is not high enough in the picture. I had to fill the shapes with a black brush first before doing the region search and anayzin. For example in case of the P-38 the computer does not know what "white" hole enclosed by black lines is "in" and "out" of the shape (for example the white area enclosed by wing, booms and elevator (tail hole) is out, but in any other aircraft area in)
I can do some other analyses too, but image should be prepared to minimize my work. That means ROI (regions of interest) should be filled with an unique color, then itīs easy, for example by running a threshold segmentation first to extract it.
But drag is much more complicated and canīt be calculated by pixel counting alone...
niklas
-
For me at least, I find myself waiting a breif moment longer before I take a shot at a 38 (while flying the Dora). Trying to make my shot count amidst the optical confusion, otherwise I usually just ping the wing. When flying a 51D I have better luck coming from the bottom or top. I am fairly new at this game, so my extra consideration (while flying something with cannon in central) may just be that I am not used to rapidly aquiring a focal point on the 38 yet.
-
Steinhoff said the 38 was best US fighter. Buhligen said it was easy to burn. Very different views.
Perhaps Buhligen ran into early models, & Steinhoff ran into J's. Just speculation. He was in Italy early 44 I believe.
Buhligens comment is in an Ed simms book. The aces speak I believe. Simms wrote 3 books on fighter combat. The greatest aces, & Aces over the oceans the other 2. He was a P-51 driver.
Birdie Wilson, ( 600 missions ), & Schroer were a couple of the many pilots he interviewed.
-
From what i have seen on my zeno warbirds dvd it looks like a manouvrable airplane with great climb..
none stalling problems and good acceleration from low speeds.
when it stalled it looked like it just hovered.
no wingdips at all good control at low speeds.
Than i saw it was flying low and fast it banked quickly and made a sharp turn.
Not what many people like to think not a slobby big truck.
Probably much alike our AH modelled plane .
Its bigness was a disadvantage as it made an easier target
Although pure frontal its pretty sleek.
.