Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Raptor on July 26, 2007, 08:41:41 PM
-
No film, so going on what each pilot said, which lessens the debate legitimacy I know. But I will throw it out anyway.
First, each pilot's conditions
AKDogg:
F4u-1 and upped with 75% fuel and climbed to 8k
Raptor:
Upped a P38L with 50% fuel and 2 DTs, dropped my DTs 5 minutes before engaging. Starting engagement at 10k.
Background:
AKDogg had alt on me all night and this was my first alt advantage, I burnt my E so I would be able to turn with him. We got in a spiraling fight with me on his 6 all the way to the deck. He kept his gear up while I put out my dive flaps. He made several attempts to force me to overshoot but I stayed behind him. I know in AH the F4u (especially -1) will out turn the P38L. There is currently a debate on the F4U's turning ability but I did not feel this belonged there.
When we reached the deck he tried to force another overshoot and I stayed behind him using rudder. I had 4 knotches of flaps down because I was going to fast to deploy the 5th knotch. He stated he was at 130mph and I was at 125mph.
Event:
AKDogg put out full flaps and went into a vertical climb (roughly 90º change of direction... spiraling as he climbed). He was able to climb 700ft (guesstimating) and use full rudder to level off his F4u at the top of his climb.
I tried to climb with AKDogg but was not able to make as abrubt change of direction as AKDogg did. I retracted my dive flaps and put out full flaps as I lost speed in the climb. I was only able to climb 500ft (another guesstimation) even though I had not made as abrubt changes in direction.
I was able to level off at the top of the climb but he managed to use his rudder to point his corsair 45º (he said 60mph or less at top of climb) to nose on me, as I began to stall out.
Any other plane would have lost too much E making such abrubt manouvers, that a P38 would have been able to loop over.
Issue:]
Are the F4u full flaps over modelled? Fowler flaps should be more efficient than conventional flaps. When the P38 FM was remodelled, HiTech made sure to give it increased drag at full flaps, it seems the F4u lacks this drag.
Should a manouvering F4u be able to out climb a P38 following a straight path with a 5mph difference in air speed?
NOTE:
This has nothing to do with turning radius, but climbing ability. And I have nothing against AKDogg, he is the only AK I've seen fly aggressively, and if I were in an F4u I would fly it as far as AH allowed as well.
-
Not that it would have made a difference but dive flaps are useless below 300mph IAS if you're going to use them to aid in turning. They are only effective that way above 300mph IAS.
ack-ack
-
Was using them to aid in drag to stay behind his F4u, his airspeed was 130 while mine was 125 at the point of the climb.
-
First of all, IMHO if you were being smart, you would not have followed him to the deck. You would have disengaged and come back around. That's Energy fighting. If you follow someone to the deck, you will eventually run out of all your E, which is something you do not want to do in a p-38. You probably know this, but I figured I'd shine a little light on the subject.
I know I didn't answer anything about your flaps question, but perhaps you will heed my suggestion.
Fly on
-
That is flying boring in my book and I'll take the P38 to the deck low and slow any day.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Was using them to aid in drag to stay behind his F4u, his airspeed was 130 while mine was 125 at the point of the climb.
It's not going to work that way, as the design of the dive flaps is to give the plane a positive pitch to aid in pull outs. That's why they can be used to help in high speed turns but to use them to slow you down, it's just not going to work like dive brakes. If you want to dump E quick, use your rudders. Those suckers act like dive brakes.
ack-ack
-
Oh dear. Raptor, are you sure you really want to go there :)? We just spent 9 pages in a similar thread on the Corsair's turn performance.
Are the F4u full flaps over modelled? Fowler flaps should be more efficient than conventional flaps.
Here's the short answer. You're comparing apples and oranges. This is only a true statement if you're comparing flaps on the same wing on the same aircraft. It's an oversimplification to conclude that this holds true between two different aircraft with different wings without considering the other relevant aerodynamic factors.
Just FYI, looking at some NACA wind tunnel data I've been amazed by and impressed with the efficiency of the F4U's flaps.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Mobius_1
If you follow someone to the deck, you will eventually run out of all your E, which is something you do not want to do in a p-38. You probably know this, but I figured I'd shine a little light on the subject.
While that statement is true in any plane, you should know that the P-38 is also quite capable in the angles fighting department as is one of the better stall fighters in the game. I would only recommend to those that are inexperienced in flying the P-38 to keep their energy up but those that have some experience and know how to use the flaps, getting caught low and slow in the P-38 isn't something to be afraid of. But with all things, it depends on the pilots experience level and of course YMMV.
ack-ack
-
Thanks for that input dtango. Here is what is going on in my head.
P38 with Fowler flaps, no torque, going relatively straight (less drag) at nearly the same speed unable to climb to the same height with the same amount of control as the F4u with lots of torque, making rapid changes in direction (more drag from control surfaces like rudder and ailerons)
I noticed Brooke did say he felt the P38 flaps were undermodeled in AH (Benny Moore pointed this out, not sure if he got an answer regarding this, got lost in the discussion). Yes I like the P38, but I would only bring up an arguement on its FM if there were reason to believe it were incorrect in AH. Right now I don't have any knowledge of this but if someone like Brooke says that I must wonder why he would say that.
-
Dogg's a really good cartoon pilot, and I think his specialty is the -1 hog. It doesn't surprise me that he did something his plane "shouldn't" be able to do.
-
Originally posted by Fianna
Dogg's a really good cartoon pilot, and I think his specialty is the -1 hog. It doesn't surprise me that he did something his plane "shouldn't" be able to do.
Agreed. He handles his E really well. made the mistake of trying to follow him up in the J the other night. Bad call :)
Might have hung with him in the G but it woulda been close.
-
The F4U will surprise a LOT of people in the spiral climb.
Additionally, climbing with flaps generally degrades your climbing ability more than it helps.
Torque effects are also pretty misunderstood. People seem to think torque means constantly fighting the plane to maintain level flight, which isn't the case as proper trim will negate the tendency to roll even at low speeds. And while torque DOES contribute to the F4U's port wing drop during the stall, the operative part of the phrase is DURING THE STALL. The only other noteworthy effect of torque is that the F4U resists rolling to the right at low airspeeds unless engine power is reduced, itself relatively easily countered with either liberal use of rudder, (which the F4U arguably has the most effective rudder of any fighter in the game) or careful throttle management.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Thanks for that input dtango. Here is what is going on in my head.
P38 with Fowler flaps, no torque, going relatively straight (less drag) at nearly the same speed unable to climb to the same height with the same amount of control as the F4u with lots of torque, making rapid changes in direction (more drag from control surfaces like rudder and ailerons)
1)i'm not sure if this might account for what you're trying to get at....but i believe the 38 is significantly heavier than the f4u? if so, then at such a low starting speed, i thinkn he'll be able to overcome gravity much easier than you in a 38, as you both need to rely on the horsepower to get ya up, rather than stored energy. not sure if i'm right, but figured i'd throw it out there!
<>
john
I noticed Brooke did say he felt the P38 flaps were undermodeled in AH (Benny Moore pointed this out, not sure if he got an answer regarding this, got lost in the discussion). Yes I like the P38, but I would only bring up an arguement on its FM if there were reason to believe it were incorrect in AH. Right now I don't have any knowledge of this but if someone like Brooke says that I must wonder why he would say that.
-
P38 may be heavier but has 2 engines to pull it up CAP1. I don't know the weight/power ratios of the two aircraft but the P38 is no bomber.
Originally Posted by WideWing
3) In a zoom climb (and that is what you generally do in a dogfight), a Co-E Spit16 and P-38J both go vertical at full power. The P-38 will initially pull ahead. Why? Inertia. The heavier fighter will have the advantage initially. Don't believe me? Get someone to fly a 109K-4 and you take an A-20G. Fly level side-by-side at 300 mph and pull into a pure vertical climb at the same time. The A-20 will pull away from the 109 and it will do so until gravity overpowers it. I've killed many an uber fighter whose pilot was dumb enough to go vertical against my A-20. Fighting the Spit16 in the vertical is the one area where the Spit has no clear-cut advantage
I'm not saying anything bad against Dogg as a cartoon pilot, but this is something beyond piloting IMO. I just want some justification for the F4u's better vertical climb with control surfaces adding extra drag.
-
One thing to consider is fuel load, Raptor. The F4U-1 at 75% fuel I believe carries somewhat less fuel than a P-38 at 50%. Also keep in mind that you used drop tanks as well, while Dogg was likely flying slick, so knowing best flight procedures in the F4U-1 and 1A, he had almost certainly burned off his wing tanks and was working on his main by the time you engaged.
So, in addition to being in a plane with a greater dry weight, you're ALSO probably carrying a heavier load of fuel which is going to affect your rate of climb.
Another thing to keep in mind:
While the P-38 on a normal straight climb will out climb the F4U-1, this measurement is ALSO I believe under optimal climb speed. The F4U was able to get off the ground carrying over 4000lbs of ordinance from very short runways under full flaps, not to mention they're intended to help get a 12,000lb aircraft off a carrier deck less than 900ft long (if not SHORTER, as the aircraft may not necessarily have the full deck to get to speed). Based on this alone, I wouldn't find it surprising if the F4U can INDEED out-climb the P-38 in a straight climb under near-stall conditions with full flaps. Does anyone here know if there were ever tests run on edge-of-stall full-flap rates of climb in the F4U and P-38?
-
I'll plug in P-38 data into all the math I just did for the F4U.
I've got data for v_stall with and without flaps, prop diameter, HP, weight, dimensions, etc. I can estimate the P-38's C_D_min and e, but I'd be happier if I got a reference for them.
Does anyone know of a good reference for C_L and C_D for the P-38 (say, for wind-tunnel data on a scale model)?
-
I'm dying to know the answer to this, and have been for a very long time. Based on everything I know, Aces High II's P-38 is very accurate, but I've always wondered if the Fowler flaps should work a bit better compared to conventional flaps. I look forward to your results.
-
Good point Saxman.
I had dropped my tanks prior to engaging him, but the F4u does burn fuel at a faster rate than the P38. He started with more (75% over 50%). This was his first engagement after landing a sortie so that would say he burnt more than 25% of his fuel in the time it took to climb to 8k? Or do you not consider proportions in this kind of situation. (Thinking if both planes at roughly the same fuel % load will that have a significant difference in results?)
His corsair was flying close to vertical while he was rolling though, and I flew straight angling into the vertical so I am not sure.
-
Raptor,
you quoted Widewing in regards to heavy fighter & Inertia.
but Widewing is talking Zoom climbs, where one is at speed and has the mass a haulin tail......so the inertia kicks in.....
this is apples to oranges comparing it to starting a vertical climb at 125 & 130 mpph respectively, you have no speed for the inertia to be of any use in this reference....at this speed one would probably be looking for shear Thrust output when beginning a vertical maneuver so slow. so it is back to power to weight ratio....( & flaps efficiency?..... you both are close in the caliber of fighter in my book )
edit: knowing AKDogg in the Hog, if he was rolling he was using the torque of the Hog to roll the plane and reduce fighting it ( fighting it meaning: holding aileron straight - ie....increasing drag? and also using the rolls to look back over his shoulder to keep you in site )
-
When I fly the -1 hog, I always use 75% fuel. To me it gives the plane better balance. I don't burn the wing tanks at all on the -1. Those tanks are my reserve to get home. When u load 75% fuel in the -1 it puts 25% fuel in each wing and 100% in main. When we engaged raptor on that fight, I had approx 7/8 of a tank left in main as I just upped from the CV and got to 8k. 75% fuel in a -1 hog gives u 39mins of flight time from take off at full throttle.
Now for having control at the top of my stall, what I did there raptor was use the torque of the engine to put my nose on ya. What I mean is where u were located at that time, I rolled the plane so that the torque would help me point the nose to u. This is how I get alot of people in stall fighting by using the torque of the engine to help me turn in the vertical.
Now for the flaps that i used to do that manev on ya. I had only 1 notch of flaps just before I started that and when I did start the pull up, I went to 3 notchs to give me that extra nose quickly then pulled my flaps back to 1 notch to close to the top of vertical then went full flaps just before the nose over. The p38 should have still out climbed me but like AKAK said, U used the flaps somewhat wrong in that situation or leading to that stituation.
Now keep in mind the other fights we had that night, I was getting lighter each time we engaged via ammo load/fuel load going down which we all know make the plane even more incrediable. When I usually rtb its either ammo or my fuel goes to wing tanks. The wing tanks at 25% each will get me about 40 miles if i go economy mode but at full throttle will go about 20-25 miles which is about the distance to any airfield.
Lately I been flying stupid when AKAK is around and I sometimes just go vertical with him and I usually die. Alot of it maybe i get to confident or I don't really care. I do get in those moods quite often,lol.
-
heh, AKDogg answers as I edited same about the roll & Torque......
Afternoon Dogg ~S~
-
Dogg
When we were discussing it on 200 you said you went full flaps and I assumed you stayed at full flaps. That threw me off the most. That's enough evidence for me as I was thinking before you replied "in a pure vertical climb would it not be better to use less flaps and rely on the engines?"
-
Well raptor, I did hit my flap button multiple times but we both know that flaps don't deploy that quickly. I might have selected full flaps but by the time they would have got to full flaps I would have been alrdy verticle. So as the flaps were going down and I was pulling up, at about 75% of the pull up I was alrdy putting flaps back up if u know what I mean.
back to ya
-
I put the P-38J numbers into the model and got the following (in the Appendix: P-38J):
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
It seems the model agrees pretty well with AH, although not as well as with the F4U-1. The model predicts about 10% better turning performance for the P-38J. However, I had to estimate e_clean, e_flaps, and C_D_min_flaps. Also, I was using stall speeds for power off. For the F4U, I was using stall speed power on, which is lower and results in estimates of C_L_max being larger. If I used power-on stall speeds for the P-38J, the model would predict still a little better turn rate. (I don't have a good reference for power-on stall speed for the P-38J, which is why I didn't use it.)
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I put the P-38J numbers into the model and got the following (in the Appendix: P-38J):
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
It seems the model agrees pretty well with AH, although not as well as with the F4U-1. The model predicts about 10% better turning performance for the P-38J. However, I had to estimate e_clean, e_flaps, and C_D_min_flaps. Also, I was using stall speeds for power off. For the F4U, I was using stall speed power on, which is lower and results in estimates of C_L_max being larger. If I used power-on stall speeds for the P-38J, the model would predict still a little better turn rate. (I don't have a good reference for power-on stall speed for the P-38J, which is why I didn't use it.)
I have the P-38J/L manual and it provides only power-off stall numbers. For example, for a P-38J at 15,000 lbs stall occurs at:
Clean: 94 mph IAS
Landing config, full flaps: 69 mph IAS
These numbers require adjustment due to pitot tube position error, and there's a rough chart for this provided. In the P-38's case, the error is less when full flaps are used. I suspect this is due to reduced AoA.
I have found numbers for power-on stall from the Joint Fighter Conference. Unfortunately, they are all over the place, depending upon the pilot. In some cases, as much as a 15 mph difference can be seen. Some pilots reported a higher stall speed using full flaps, which is at odds with Tony LeVier's comments. LeVier stated in an interview that stall speed clean was reduced by 5 mph with power on. I tend to lean towards LeVier as he was the lead test pilot on the P-38 program from 1944 on, and had nearly 4,000 hours in the type.
In game, stall speeds are as follows from testing for P-38J at 15,464 lb.
Power off-
Clean: 104 mph TAS
Landing: 88 mph TAS
Power on-
Clean: 100 mph TAS
Landing: 79 mph TAS
Flap drag is another factor that can be measured in terms of speed bleed-down. Power off with full flaps, the P-38J requires 8.31 seconds to bleed down from 150 mph TAS to 100 mph TAS.
Compare this to the F4U-1D, which with full flaps requires 6.03 seconds to bleed down from 150 mph TAS to 100 mph TAS.
In addition, with full flaps and MIL power, level flight, the P-38J will accelerate past 150 mph TAS with ease, eventually gaining enough speed to blow up the flaps. On the other hand, the F4U-1D cannot exceed 144 mph in MIL power with full flaps (after 3 minutes at 144 mph). To obtain enough speed for testing, flaps had to be raised one notch and then dropped at 155 mph to begin timing at 150 mph. The drag increase with that final notch of flaps is huge, and demonstrates why flying around with more flaps than needed is detrimental.
So, the P-38J's Fowlers generate much less drag than the F4U-1D's flaps, which should be the case. Both aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel, zero burn.
As far as I can tell, the flaps on the P-38s seem to perform as they should (except for blowing up, P-38 flaps could not blow up, but would just jam in the roller tracks).
My regards,
Widewing
-
On Mike Williams' excellent site, some of the documents give power on speeds as low at 53 M.P.H. with full flaps. Obviously, that's not calibrated, but still ...
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
On Mike Williams' excellent site, some of the documents give power on speeds as low at 53 M.P.H. with full flaps. Obviously, that's not calibrated, but still ...
Thanks for reminding me Benny.
I think it is calibrated, or at least corrected for error...
Flight Test Engineering Branch
Memo Report No. Eng-47-1706-A
4 February 1944
FLIGHT TESTS
OF A P-38J AIRPLANE
Flight tests have been conducted at Wright Field on the P-38J Airplane, AAF, No. 42-67869, at the request of the Fighter Branch, Experimental Engineering Division. These tests were made on this airplane primarily to obtain comparative performance data with similar tests on a P-47D-10, a P-39Q-5 and a P-51B airplane. The performance should be that of a typical production model as it was selected at random from airplanes which had been delivered from the factory. From 2 December 1943 to 21 January 1944 approximately 30 hours were flown on this airplane by Capt. G. E. Lundquist, Capt F. C. Bretcher, and Capt J. W. Williams.
Condition of Aircraft Relative to Tests:
A. The airplane was equipped with wing racks, otherwise the configuration was normal with all flights at a gross weight at take-off of 16,597 pounds with the c.g at 24.75 m.a.c., gear down; and 28.5% m.a.c. , gear up. Gross weight included 300 gallons of fuel, 26 gallons of oil, 457 lbs. of ballast for ammunition, 100 pounds of ballast in the nose to locate the center of gravity within the allowable range, and automatic observer, complet radio equipment and antenna, and 200 pounds for the pilot. All items effecting the drag of the airplane may be seen in the photgraphs which are included at the end of the report.
Skip down to......
F. Stalling Speeds
Indicated airspeed corrected for instrument error
Landing gear up, flaps up.
Power off: 99 mph
Power on: 74 mph
Landing down, flaps up.
Power off: 95 mph
Power on: 73 mph
Landing gear down, flaps down.
Power off: 78 mph
Power on: 53 mph
*Power on was at 54" Hg manifold pressure and 3000 rpm
There you go Brooke, real, reliable test data from the Fighter Branch, Experimental Engineering Division at Wright Field. Plug these numbers into your calculations and maybe we'll get a better understanding of the AH2 flight model.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Also interesting is this chart that shows how much the boosted ailerons increased roll rate, even at low speeds around 125 mph...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38j-roll.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I have the P-38J/L manual and it provides only power-off stall numbers. For example, for a P-38J at 15,000 lbs stall occurs at:
Clean: 94 mph IAS
Landing config, full flaps: 69 mph IAS
These numbers require adjustment due to pitot tube position error, and there's a rough chart for this provided. In the P-38's case, the error is less when full flaps are used. I suspect this is due to reduced AoA.
Yep, those are the numbers I used, and I corrected them to CAS using linear regression on the values in the table.
I have found numbers for power-on stall from the Joint Fighter Conference. Unfortunately, they are all over the place, depending upon the pilot. In some cases, as much as a 15 mph difference can be seen. Some pilots reported a higher stall speed using full flaps, which is at odds with Tony LeVier's comments. LeVier stated in an interview that stall speed clean was reduced by 5 mph with power on. I tend to lean towards LeVier as he was the lead test pilot on the P-38 program from 1944 on, and had nearly 4,000 hours in the type.
I'll plug in stall speeds that are 5 mph lower and see what that does to C_L_max and thus the other stats.
Flap drag is another factor that can be measured in terms of speed bleed-down. Power off with full flaps, the P-38J requires 8.31 seconds to bleed down from 150 mph TAS to 100 mph TAS.
Compare this to the F4U-1D, which with full flaps requires 6.03 seconds to bleed down from 150 mph TAS to 100 mph TAS.
In addition, with full flaps and MIL power, level flight, the P-38J will accelerate past 150 mph TAS with ease, eventually gaining enough speed to blow up the flaps. On the other hand, the F4U-1D cannot exceed 144 mph in MIL power with full flaps (after 3 minutes at 144 mph). To obtain enough speed for testing, flaps had to be raised one notch and then dropped at 155 mph to begin timing at 150 mph. The drag increase with that final notch of flaps is huge, and demonstrates why flying around with more flaps than needed is detrimental.
So, the P-38J's Fowlers generate much less drag than the F4U-1D's flaps, which should be the case. Both aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel, zero burn.
Good points on the flaps. The P-38 has more weight and thrust than the F4U (W = 16,462 vs. 11,300 lbs, and T = 4650 vs. 3600 lbs at 150 mph). The extra weight could cause it to decelerate more slowly and the extra thrust could be enough to pull through to higher speeds even if full-flap C_D_min for the P-38 is similar to the F4U. I'll play around with the models some. I wish I could find a C_L and C_D vs. alpha graph for the P-38 with and without flaps.
Do Fowler flaps give less drag? They generally give a higher C_L_max and so perhaps a higher L/D that for, say, split flaps, but I don't know if they have a lower C_D_min.
One thing about P-38 vs. F4U flaps. P-38's have Fowler flaps in that the flaps extend backward. However, they are also somewhat like split flaps in that the leading edge of the flap is still forward of the trailing edge of the wing during full-flap deflection -- or so it seems to me. The F4U does not seem to have plain flaps, but slotted flaps, which are more efficient than plain flaps. So, it might be that the P-38 flaps (sort of Fowler/split combo) are not a lot more efficient than the F4U flaps (slotted). Power-off stall C_L_max with and without flaps might be one way to judge. I'll look at that, too.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Thanks for reminding me Benny.
There you go Brooke, real, reliable test data from the Fighter Branch, Experimental Engineering Division at Wright Field. Plug these numbers into your calculations and maybe we'll get a better understanding of the AH2 flight model.
My regards,
Widewing
Many thanks, guys! I will start some calculations.
-
I think the numbers are IAS, not CAS based on the way the author wrote the description and based on the fact that the power-off stall speeds listed are very close to the ones listed as IAS in the P-38 pilot's manual.
For the power-on numbers, 54" and 3000 RPM is basically full power. For the stall to happen then, the plane will be deep into slow flight, whereas the F4U power-on data is for much less than full power. I'm thinking I will need to have the part of the model that calculates C_L_max based on v_stall will need to start taking into account thrust contribution to lift, which complicates it.
-
Hi guys
I'm going to say something about the original question, but before I do I'd like to say something about this exchange:
Originally posted by Mobius_1
First of all, IMHO if you were being smart, you would not have followed him to the deck. You would have disengaged and come back around. That's Energy fighting.
Originally posted by Raptor
That is flying boring in my book and I'll take the P38 to the deck low and slow any day.
The reason this caught my eye, was that Mobius is absolutely correct here, and your response is interesting because I'm noticing posts involving a similar stance, i.e that energy fighting is boring and is to be avoided (even if it kills you) at all costs, becoming more frequent.
The simple fact is that in every dissimilar aircraft engagement, one aircraft can always be classified as the energy fighter, and the other as the angles fighter. In some cases the difference between the aircraft may be so slight as to make the distinction meaningless, in which case you fight it as though it were a similar aircraft engagement, but that isn't true in this case. If there is a clear distinction, and you happen to be flying the energy fighter and chose to fly an angles fight anyway, nobody should be too surprised at the outcome.
That's not to say it is always wrong to fly it the other way, because even an angles fighter can be flown as though it were an energy fighter for a while given a large enough initial energy advantage. But the point remains.
If the distinction was large, for example in the case of a P-38L v Zeke, the question of flaps wouldn't arise and the choice of fight would be clear cut.
However, in the P-38L v F4U-1 engagement the urge to use flaps and fly both aircraft as though they were angles fighters would be strong for both pilots, because for the majority of engagements both could normally fly that way with great success. But look what happens when you put them together, and when both pilots deploy flaps in an effort to win the angles fight.
The following EM Diagram overlay shows the P-38L and F4U1 in a similar configuration to the one you mentioned. Although these aircraft were tested in different versions, they are both current.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/F4U-1vP-38Lc2.jpg)
You can see from this overlay that the P-38L in this engagement is clearly the energy fighter, and the F4U-1 is the angles fighter. The P-38L has a higher sustained turn rate and speed, but also has a larger turn radius, in that situation it can still win using its superior energy performance. Given that the P-38 had an initial energy advantage, the outcome could easily have been (and should have been) very different. Unfortunately, wasting energy in preference for the wrong kind of fight was nothing less than a gift to your opponent.
The growing mindset in AH that the only kind of fight worth winning is a pure angles fight is unfortunate, because it is a long way from the reality and purpose of air combat.
As a more direct comparison between the F4U-1 and P-38L, here is an EM diagram overlay where both aircraft have the same 25% fuel load.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/F4U-1vP-38Lc1.jpg)
The conclusion I would draw from inspection of that EM analysis is that if both of those aircraft were to be flown as pure angles fighters the F4U-1 would have a clear advantage and probably win the majority of such engagements between equal pilots. On the other hand, if the P-38 were to be flown correctly, particularly given an initial energy advantage, the outcome would be very different. That's why real fighter pilots place so much emphasis on that sort of distinction and on flying their own fight, and not being suckered into the kind of fight that suits their opponent.
Regardless of how the real-world comparison being investigated and discussed by Brooke, Widewing and dtango works out, this is the way it works in the only environment that matters if you want to win your next on-line engagement... Hope it helps.
Badboy
-
I know going into a fight that I am usually at a disadvantage flying the P38 as an angles fighter. But I get more of a kick out of trying to out manouver the opponent. 75% of the time I engage planes with better turning radius than myself but 90% of the time I out fly them. Yes Dogg is a good pilot and I knew it was him before engaging, that didn't stop me because I knew it would be close and still a fun fight. My reason for posting is not that I got beat, I expect an F4u to tou turn me when flown by an equally good cartoon pilot. My reason for posting was misunderstanding what AKDogg said after the engagement. I thought he kept full flaps out the entire climb, which I thought very inaccurate. He in fact did not keep out full flaps and I am content now in knowing that. I still would like to see what Brooke's results are but I have no more arguement.
There are different mindsets in AH, those that wish to live, those that wish to never die, and those that don't care.
Those that wish to live include a majority of players, they up planes they think will give them the best advantage, a spit16, a N1K, something they can use to get out of a mess if they get caught in one.
Those that never wish to die come to the fight with an advantage, disengage when they start to lose an advantage, and fly the faster planes that can flee from a threat.
Those that don't care look for the fights. Because they look for fights, they learn more ACM IMO, thus resulting in better ability to fly less capable aircraft up against more agile aircraft.
-
Hmm. The issue of power-on stall is not a simple one. I think a correct accounting for it is not just to add in the thrust component to lift (because of angle of attack). I think it would have to be an effect of increased air velocity over the portion of the wing aft of the prop -- and that is not very easy to model for.
That aspect will require much more thought and calculation.
In the meantime, I think it's best in my models (and in the spreadsheet) to use power-off stall speeds (which the spreadsheet then uses to calculate C_L_max).