Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: onions4u on May 16, 2005, 06:57:40 PM
-
Could some of you tell me the difference between the the p38s now in the game. Especially the 38 J and 38 L. found some info on netaces for the 38G. thanks in advance
-
The main differences between the J and L model is the lack of boosted aileron controls for the J and the lack of dive flaps. It also carries less ordnace than the L. Limited to 2,000 pounds of bombs and 6 bazooka rockets. Performance wise, it's very similiar to the L except it is a tad sluggish in rolls due to the lack of boosted ailerons.
ack-ack
-
Improvements incorporated in P-38J-25-LO and P-38L were:
Dive recovery flaps.
Hydraulically boosted ailerons.
Exclusive to P-38L series were
Tail warning radar.
Different engines (rated by Allison for 1,725 hp WEP, USAF derated engines to 1,600 hp).
Improved cockpit heating.
Automatic powerplant controls.
Landing light re-located from wheel well to leading edge of wing.
Improved turbocharger regulators.
Tree type rocket rail capability installed at factory on P-38L-5-LO(field modification for earlier L models).
My regards,
Widewing
-
P38G looks better :)
Dan/CorkyJr
Always a sucker for a good looking gal
-
P35G turns too well for my taste, I like to work for my kills. More sporty killing spits using a J or L;)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Improvements incorporated in P-38J-25-LO and P-38L were:
Dive recovery flaps.
Hydraulically boosted ailerons.
Exclusive to P-38L series were
Tail warning radar.
Different engines (rated by Allison for 1,725 hp WEP, USAF derated engines to 1,600 hp).
Improved cockpit heating.
Automatic powerplant controls.
Landing light re-located from wheel well to leading edge of wing.
Improved turbocharger regulators.
Tree type rocket rail capability installed at factory on P-38L-5-LO(field modification for earlier L models).
My regards,
Widewing
Please tell me when did the P-38 ever incorporate the landing light in the gear well? In the work I have done, I have only ever seen it in the main wing panel as a fold out extension in the lower outer wing, or in the leading edge of the outer wing.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
.
Different engines (rated by Allison for 1,725 hp WEP, USAF derated engines to 1,600 hp).
[/B]
Interesting.. so the 1725hp setting was never used?
The 4.0 patch for FB/PF will have a new P38L, I'm quoting of the readme :
"2) The P-38L with 1720 hp engines – about 2,000 aircraft of this type were produced and used on both European and Pacific theaters."
You think that's historically correct?
-
The P-38L had Allisons with the new 12-counterweight crankshaft. Allison cleared them for 3200 rpm/65 in Hg vice 3000/60 for the older 6-counterweight engines. Lockheed seems to have cleared the P-38L for that rating as well, but the USAAF didn't officially do so.
But, it appears much more common for USAAF and to a lesser extent USN/USMC pilots to exceed the official ratings than it was for the RAF or Luftwaffe. In part that was because the USAAF was a lot more conservative with ratings than the RAF was. And also because the much greater manual control required of US engines allowed the pilots do do so with ease. I would expect that it was pretty comon for the L-5 to be running at 3200/65 when it came available.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Please tell me when did the P-38 ever incorporate the landing light in the gear well? In the work I have done, I have only ever seen it in the main wing panel as a fold out extension in the lower outer wing, or in the leading edge of the outer wing.
It wasn't in the gear well. Faulty memory on my part. At least not on USAAF P-38s. I recall seeing a civilian P-38 where a second light had been rigged to the nose wheel door...
All P-38s prior to the L model had a light that rotated down and forward from the wing. P-38H model had two, one on each side.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
The P-38L had Allisons with the new 12-counterweight crankshaft. Allison cleared them for 3200 rpm/65 in Hg vice 3000/60 for the older 6-counterweight engines. Lockheed seems to have cleared the P-38L for that rating as well, but the USAAF didn't officially do so.
But, it appears much more common for USAAF and to a lesser extent USN/USMC pilots to exceed the official ratings than it was for the RAF or Luftwaffe. In part that was because the USAAF was a lot more conservative with ratings than the RAF was. And also because the much greater manual control required of US engines allowed the pilots do do so with ease. I would expect that it was pretty comon for the L-5 to be running at 3200/65 when it came available.
Greg Shaw
The 12 counter weight crank was developed for the P-82 engines, which combined with the turbo setup on the P-38 would have been real killers.
I think (last time I looked anyway) we have 60" and 3000RPM on the J and L models.
I've seen and heard of Lockheed authorizing as much as 72" on the "dash 30" engines in the L models. I know a few pilots who used it (72" and 3200RPM), and a few who did not. Mostly they said they used it rarely, as in only when they needed it to survive or to run down an escaping enemy. Many I know say they exceeded the RPM limits of 3000, but not so many say they went for 66"-72"+ of boost.
You are correct, to their credit, the RAF would begin pushing to exceed the limits the minute they found an engine was pretty reliable at the lower limits.
The USAAF however did not often do this. This was especially true in the 8th AF with the P-38, as the British fuel did not work well at all in the P-38's, especially the pre J models with the leading edge intercoolers in the outer wings. The mid to late J models and the L's got not only a better intercooler, but a redesigned intake manifold that alleviated much of the detonation issues found in the earlier models with lesser quality fuel.
The fuel situation in Europe was bad enough that Doolittle, who was a Shell employee in peacetime, got Shell to go all out to fix the problems. It was not only a problem for the P-38, but for other planes as well. It just happened that the P-38 "seemed" to be more affected than some others.
We got a hold on a couple of the P-82 Allisons back when I worked on pulling tractors. They were just plain nasty with only the crank driven supercharger. We found out from an Unlimited Hydroplane team that combined with the turbocharger from a P-38 they were just incredible. He 9the machanic for the hydro team) told us he got his from a guy who had a P-38 at one time. It seems the guy with the P-38 tried them, and the Curtiss props just could not deal with the power, they cavitated badly, and became very unreliable. Evidently, the P-38 owner never figured out how to get different props on his P-38.
-
IIRC the 12-counterweight crank was used in the G and late F series Allisons, probably the late E's too but I don't have "Vees for Victory" available right now, it wasn't directly related to the P-82 engines.
The F17 on the J was rated at 54 in Hg, 3000 rpm for 1425 hp mil. 60 in Hg, 3000 rpm for 1600 hp WEP. The 9.5 in - 8.1:1 blower was sized specifically to provide that 60-61 in Hg at 3000 rpm when provided with SL pressure from the turbo.
The F30 increased the rpm limit to 3200 because of the new crank. The higher blower rpm raised maximum manifold pressure as well, up to about 65 in Hg. 72 in Hg from that blower would probably require about 3400 rpm, or a fair amount of ram.
The 1725 hp rating at 3200/65 has never seemed to add up. 3000/65 should be somewhere in that area, about 1730-1735 hp (65/60 * 1600). While 3200/60 comes out about 1705 hp, of course it will lose about 25 hp or so of that due to the higher blower power requirements. But 3200/65 is 3200/3000 * 65/60 * 1600, or about 1850 hp. As I said, you will lose some of that to the higher blower power draw, but it comes out well above 1725 hp. I may be missing something, but it doesn't seem to add up.
Greg Shaw
-
the amount of perkies you get for blowing them up vary...
:aok
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
The 1725 hp rating at 3200/65 has never seemed to add up. 3000/65 should be somewhere in that area, about 1730-1735 hp (65/60 * 1600). While 3200/60 comes out about 1705 hp, of course it will lose about 25 hp or so of that due to the higher blower power requirements.
So far the only excat rating I have seen for the F30 at 3200rpm is 1725hp/60" claimed in the "Aircraft Engines of the World" by Wilkinson. But reliability of the data in the Wilkinson's book tend to vary...
BTW Allison gives the data for the V-1710 allways in the round numbers; 1200, 1325, 1600...
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
So far the only excat rating I have seen for the F30 at 3200rpm is 1725hp/60" claimed in the "Aircraft Engines of the World" by Wilkinson. But reliability of the data in the Wilkinson's book tend to vary...
BTW Allison gives the data for the V-1710 allways in the round numbers; 1200, 1325, 1600...
gripen
The ratings were generally rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 hp. Mil ratings were a round number; 1125, 1150, 1200, 1325, 1425 because of the way the US rated engines. There are four variables in engine ratings; power, critical alt, manifold pressure and rpm. You fix two of them and let the other two float. The US fixed power and rpm, most others fixed manifold pressure and rpm. That is why you have very different Allisons all rated at 1150 hp, but at different altitudes and manifold pressures. WEP powers differed, fixing rpm and manifold pressure like the Europeans. That is why WEP powers don't always round to the nearest 25 hp like mil does. IE the F3R was rated at 1490 hp on 56 in Hg WEP, the F4R at 1580 hp on 60 in Hg.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Tail warning radar.
Widewing [/B]
:eek: More info please.
-
Originally posted by DarkglamJG52
:eek: More info please.
It had the AN/APS-13 low power pulse radar mounted in the rear of the left boom. (Non of the "P-38L" detail drawings I have show the components, which leads me to believe it was introduced in the -5LO. I dont recall anything in my books that indicate the production block. I would suspect the APS-13 box would be located around the battery compartment.)
Anyway, anything comming within the proximity of the tail at a set range would set off a red light and bell in the cockpit. Here is a reference to its use from the 1stFG logs:
"14 Mar 1945 - The rear warning radar proved invaluable when a P-38 in the tail end of a formation avoided an attack from the German jet."
-
Originally posted by Murdr
It had the AN/APS-13 low power pulse radar mounted in the rear of the left boom. (Non of the "P-38L" detail drawings I have show the components, which leads me to believe it was introduced in the -5LO. I dont recall anything in my books that indicate the production block. I would suspect the APS-13 box would be located around the battery compartment.)
Anyway, anything comming within the proximity of the tail at a set range would set off a red light and bell in the cockpit. Here is a reference to its use from the 1stFG logs:
"14 Mar 1945 - The rear warning radar proved invaluable when a P-38 in the tail end of a formation avoided an attack from the German jet."
Damn I want a proximity alarm in the PL in the game. I mean, DAMN.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
It had the AN/APS-13 low power pulse radar mounted in the rear of the left boom. (Non of the "P-38L" detail drawings I have show the components, which leads me to believe it was introduced in the -5LO. I dont recall anything in my books that indicate the production block. I would suspect the APS-13 box would be located around the battery compartment.)
Anyway, anything comming within the proximity of the tail at a set range would set off a red light and bell in the cockpit. Here is a reference to its use from the 1stFG logs:
"14 Mar 1945 - The rear warning radar proved invaluable when a P-38 in the tail end of a formation avoided an attack from the German jet."
Couldn't find a P38 image with the tail warning radar. But here's a linup of Iwo based P51s. You can see the installation on the tail of each of them. Red arrow pointed to the foreground Mustang's radar.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1116572241_lineup.jpg)
-
Yea, thats the antenna. I was refering to where the circuit box was.
-
Not to change the subject, but I came across a really nice website for the wartime 33rd PRS, 9th AF. They flew F5 photo Lightnings.
http://www.33rdprs.org/
Thought it was some good insight into another aspect of P38 flying.
There's a great book out by John Stanaway on another Photo Lightning squadron, called "Eight Ballers-The Eyes of the 5th Air Force"
Tons of great P38 photos and some really nice wartime history.
Dan/CorkyJr
Can't get enough of those 38s:)
-
(http://store.yahoo.com/lib/planestuff/p38ideas.gif)
'Screwball idea' they call it.
-
From a buddy of mine...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1116591211_p38l.gif)
-
Originally posted by Schaden
From a buddy of mine...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1116591211_p38l.gif)
Hmmm...funny. That describes about 90% of the players in the game.
ack-ack
-
For guppy :)
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/IMG_1321.jpg)
from a great new p38 site
-
Thanks BUG :)
80th Headhunters 38 and a Spit PRXIX. Talk about a little piece of heaven :)
Now if that Spit was a Spit XII in 41 Squadron markings, I'd have had the heart attack and died on the spot :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I stupidly just choose the P38 when i became AH consript. It would be my everyday ride.
I was tired flying the spit (but also gracious plane).
I wanted a plane with character :)
Now 4-5 years later i still am not bored with the shape and everything about the P38.
In fact i love it more every day i especialy love the G or early models with its sleek engine cowlings.
I should see a real P38 one day like the glacier girl. That engine sound that i got on a take off movie really gives me the shivers.
Im so in love :D
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
For guppy :)
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/IMG_1321.jpg)
Looks vaugely familiar :)
(http://479th.jasminemarie.com/films/06_04.jpg)
-
(http://www.327th.com/images/Savage/P-38Savage.jpg)
don't it though?
-
Twin rotors on that spit???
What spit is that?
Tex
-
(http://www.planesoffame.org/images/photo%20images/2-p38s.jpg)
wow !!
from http://www.planesoffame.org
(http://www.planesoffame.org/images/photo%20images/f16-p38-p51.jpg)
I'm really in love with that Glacier Girl that is one great looking plane.
-
You have not lived until you've seen "Glacier Girl" and "Porky II" fly in tight formation and raise some Hell.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Twin rotors on that spit???
What spit is that?
Tex
Looks like Spit XIX
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Twin rotors on that spit???
What spit is that?
Tex
It's a restored Spit PR19.
The Thai Governement gave it to Planes of Fame Museum in California and they restored it. The contra-rotating prop isn't normal for a Spit 19. They were going to use it for some speed record attempts and had clipped wings on it as well.
They recently sold it to someone in France and added to normal wingtips but retained the contra-rotating prop so it's not really in it's wartime configuration.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Now 4-5 years later i still am not bored with the shape and everything about the P38.
In fact i love it more every day i especialy love the G or early models with its sleek engine cowlings.
I should see a real P38 one day like the glacier girl. That engine sound that i got on a take off movie really gives me the shivers.
Im so in love :D
I've been flying the P-38 exclusively as my main fighter ride for 10+ years and I've yet to grow bored with the Lightning. Think Murdr has flown it just as long as I have too.
ack-ack
-
Hi Dan,
>The contra-rotating prop isn't normal for a Spit 19. They were going to use it for some speed record attempts and had clipped wings on it as well.
Hm, from what I read the Spitfire XIX in question until recently had a standard propeller but was grounded due to either propeller or engine trouble. When they found a complete Shackleton (?) power unit with contra-rotating propeller for less than it cost to fix either the broken propeller or engine, they simply went the path of least resistance.
That's from memory only, I'd have to dig through old magazines to make sure it's accurate :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dan,
>The contra-rotating prop isn't normal for a Spit 19. They were going to use it for some speed record attempts and had clipped wings on it as well.
Hm, from what I read the Spitfire XIX in question until recently had a standard propeller but was grounded due to either propeller or engine trouble. When they found a complete Shackleton (?) power unit with contra-rotating propeller for less than it cost to fix either the broken propeller or engine, they simply went the path of least resistance.
That's from memory only, I'd have to dig through old magazines to make sure it's accurate :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
It is a Shackelton Griffon but was restored from the start to have the contra-rotating props because of the record attempts.
Many of the Griffon Spits flying now have Shackleton engines modified to work
Dan/CorkyJr