Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bolillo_loco on December 08, 2000, 11:30:00 PM
-
Hi just found this place. I have some questions that have never made sense to me about this plane and I was hoping that somebody could clear them up for me.
top speed of the lightning seems to come from americas hundred thousands data. also the rates for climb. this data is the lowest I have seen, but not too far from other books I have.
martin caidin's book
speed in tas
360 mph 5,000ft
390 mph 15,000ft
421 mph 25,000ft
426 mph 30,000ft
rate of climb fpm
3,900 at 5,000ft
3,600 at 15,000ft
3,100 at 25,000ft
warren bodies book says
345 mph sea level
421.5 mph at 25,800ft
4,000 fpm at sea level
2,900 fpm at 23,400ft
6.19 minutes to 23,400 ft
this book also goes on to describe that the last half of 38Ls had 1,725 hp wep vs 1,600 of earlier Js and Ls top speed is listed as 425 military and 440 wep.
dive speeds. I see the 460 mph figure is used. is this in tas or ias. 420 mph ias at 10,000 ft is listed in the pilots manual, but this is with out the dive recovery flaps being used. with them it says you can safely exceed this number by 20 mph.
these speeds do not represent the true ias that the plane was doing. the speedo had large errors. how come mach speeds which are more accurate arent being used?
this data is listed for max mach number permitted with out dive recovery flaps.
mach .675 buffet begins
mach .72 nose becomes heavy
mach .74 nose tucks under
I have three books which all agree on one thing. mach .72 was safe in a lightning with dive recovery flaps.
the g limits is another question I have. I saw the g limit is listed as 6. this is a bit low. 38s were rated the same as 47s 8g work load and 12g break. the mustang is listed a bit higher than it should. remember the original P-51A was stressed for 8g work and 12g break, but it was also much lighter than a P-51D, but used the same airframe.
one more question. I dont buy the 400mph figure of a 38 at 30,000ft. consider this. a P-38J/L did 390 mph TAS at 30,000ft under 2,200hp (max cont power) they made wep power to 29,000ft so with 1,000 more hp the lightning only picked up 10 mph? it just doesnt seem to jive with other planes that picked up 25-40 mph with just 200 hp additions. I understand that a 38 is big, but still 1,000 more hp only gives it 10 more mph?
[This message has been edited by bolillo_loco (edited 12-08-2000).]
-
oh one more question. I do not have this game yet, but was thinking of getting it. does the 38 spin when stalled at any speed while both engines are running normaly?
-
I fly the jug pretty much exclusively, so I can't answer your question. But why don't you download it and test yourself? The software is free to download and play offline.
(http://www.jump.net/~cs3/sigs/uns_sig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
BOLILLO! Welcome to AH bud. Are you gonna sign up to fly here, or just stopping by?
-
Hi Bolillo_Loco and welcome to AH.
I can't comment on the speeds other than the planes in the game seems to follow the numbers the graphs are showing.
As for the max dive-speeds and G-loadings these shouldn't be taken as "exeed this and you are doomed"-numbers. They are more of a guidance to be careful when exceeding them.
I think the divespeeds listed are IAS. Reason they are not mach is that this number can't be read from the cockpit. We only got IAS (the white needle) and TAS (The red marker. Unhistoric of course)
I just tried the P38L, and from put it in a dive from 30,000ft. Surely the nose began to tuck under, but when I reached 525mph TAS at I deployed the dive-flaps and the nose came back up. From about 20,000ft I tried another dive and this time I reached 625mph TAS. The airframe moaned and groaned, (think it started at about 475 IAS), but it didn't break.
As for the G-limits it can also easily go above the 6G. Its hard to say how high I got it up due to blackout, but it seemed like I in sharp turns could reach 8G for sure, and it might have reached 9G, with no damage.
------------------
Ltn. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My own homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens)
-
bolillo I've used the AH P-38 as my main ride since it was added to AH and its latest flight model in 1.04 is the worst it has ever been.
I have a question for you bolillo:
when the p38 compressed did the ailerons also cease to function? in Aces High they do.
it now stalls and instantly snap rolls at any speed. (I lobbied hard to correct this and it was toned down although not fixed in 1.03) the P-38 stall model is seriously flawed in 1.04 again with new flight model tweaks
its compressibility is total past around 475 (lower at hi alt) HTC used the anti stick stiring code to simulate compressibility it seams.
there is no buffeting at any speed or prgressive nose tuck, its all or nothing stall/mach.6 or otherwise.
as for speed and climb the actual AH P-38 is slower by a few mph and does not climb as well as in the Aces High web page charts
and yes this is the slowest speeds available for the P-38 and its even slower than them.
but aside from how screwed up the flight model on the P-38 is I love the challenge of flying it so I still recomend it for experts looking for a challenge.
but those are just stats...
playing the game with the plane is always a bit different than what the stats say:
what the P-38L does well in AH:
great vertical fighter above 20k
great buff killer with nose guns
good jabo
good dive
good climb
good speed above 20k vs most other fighters
good roll performance at high speed
what the p38L does poorly in AH:
weak turn ability (turns only slightly better than p47)
disgusting stall characteristics
slow top speed at low altitude
poor roll response at low speed
guns have weak snapshot hitting power (needs tracking shot to damage)
compressibility a big problem at high altitude in AH even w dive flaps because aileron roll control almost nonexistant when compressed although the elevator is usable with dive flaps extended.
I know I sound critical of the P-38L but I still love flying it.
so if someone as critical about the plane as me still loves to fly it in the game it must be doing somthing right. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
give the Aces High P-38L a try... its got problems but its still not half bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 12-09-2000).]
-
Ok, it doesn't seem as good as I made it sound like. I take Citabria's word for it. He got about 1000 times more flying hours in AH's P38 than me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
sneff, were you the guy who was mean to my plane at eaw? one or two of those LLv_34 guys must have always thought I was cold because they constantly set my plane on fire to warm me up. I guess I will just have to down load it and try it out.
citabria I know everybody tends to model this plane at its lowest performance figures, but with out flaps it should turn only slightly better than a jug. with any type of flap setting it is another story though.
I dont know about its ailerons at high speeds, but I think what alot of people seem to miss is all these planes at speeds of mach .7 became dangerouse to fly.
-
can somebody explain to me why this plane has single engine habbits on take off? why is it affected by prop torque when it had none. why does it spin when it is stalled?
-
Yep that could have been me. I believe we met a couple of times in EAW.
On take off remember that there is wind present. I don't know how much of a factor this plays tho. One could try to remove wind in the offline arena settings to test.
I got a question tho. I don't know the answer, but if its a NO, this might be reason for the behaviuor.
Now I know very little of aerodynamics, but HiTech posted the 5 forces they modelled from the prop in the thread about the N1K2. Are all these forces negating each other when using two counterturning props?
<edit>I just saw a thread on this prop issue was started, so go look there instead.
[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 12-09-2000).]
-
I probably know less than you sneff, but two props working against each other at equal power would cancel each other out. I do not know all the big five dollar words, but for some reason when a single engine plane increases its speed or power settings, it becomes unstable or wants to not fly along the same flight path as it was before the power or speed change took place. so you would have to trim the plane for every speed or power change.
with counter rotating props this wasnt a problem. so for the 38 it wouldnt matter what power setting you use or how much you change speed so long as you stay with in the flight envelope of its speed limitations you wouldnt need to trim it to fly straight. or so I have read.
as far as wind affecting the planes I flew off line. I feel it wasnt possible because I had not even begun to roll much. as soon as I jammed on the throttle the plane pulled, to the left I think it was. also inflight it spun out just like single engine planes when it stalled. thats odd. could somebody explain this. is the flight model just wrong and hasnt been fixed yet?
-
The yawing on takeoff is due to wind effects. If you ever take off straight into the wind, or with it, you won't notice it at all.
All planes will spin if you make them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). AH planes tend to drop a wing in a stall, even when you're flying relatively cleanly, but this might be realistic, I've never flown any of them in real life. You have to provoke them pretty hard to actually spin though.
(http://hem.bredband.net/rickenbacker/images/ricksig.jpg)
-
P-38s did not spin when they stalled if both engines were running. no sooner I hear the stall warning the plane snaps into a spin, this is not as it is described by many pilots and the pilots manual. I have seen this error at eaw. the plane stalled and spun much more quickly than did the other planes. what gives?
also I tried to roll this plane at 200 mph ias and it took 30 seconds to complete the roll. is it me?
-
Ok, just tried putting wind to zero and like it was said you'll have NO need of rudder on take off.
For setting the wind to this, type:
.wind 0 0 0
in the text box.
As for the roll I can do a roll at 200 IAS in about 6 secs with no rudder input.
I still no nothing about stall/spin characteristics.
-
I've flown that damn p38 more than anyone else who ever played this game and I fully agree with you about the awful stall modelling.
its worse in 1.04 than it was in the 1.03 release which wasnt bad.
-
Hasn't HTC already said that the incorrect stall behaviour is just an unfortunate limitation of the AH flight modelling?
On the plus side, it gives the P-38L some very nice snap roll abilities which no other plane has... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
All,
I got curious and dug out a book I have covering a number of WW2 American Aces. The title is "Fighter Tactics of the Aces" Published by World War Two Publications.
I was looking for a reference to Tommy McGuire who was in contention with Dick Bong for top ace status. I recall reading that Tommy died after going after a kill low and got slow. His plane (P38L) spun and he wasn't able to recover in time. I also recall he attacked with his drop tanks still on and violated a rule he stressed with others which was to never get slow with a tank in an attack as the 38 would spin. He was killed doing just that. The account I recall was that he did stop the spin but mushed into the trees and was killed in the impact.
I couldn't find that excerpt so consider it suspect.
I did come across something else however. Another 38 ace, Cpt. Elliot Summer (610 combat hours & 10 kills in Pacific) was asked for a letter about tactics to use against the "nips". It's about 3 pages long but he did have one section about the 38L and the use of a "G" suit in actual combat. I will quote that section.
"c. Tactics probable with P-38L and "G" suit.
1. This combination makes possible many new tactics both offensively and defensively.
2. The "G" suit, aileron boost, and dive brakes allow for very high speed dives, tight turns, abrupt pull-outs, and a high rate of roll. I found it impossible for me to black out although I indicated 575 MPH, dropped dive flaps and reefed in as tight as possible. The pullout was so severe as to buckle the wings.
3. There is a possiblity that at speeds of around 300 MPH the combination of "G" suit and P-38L would allow for turning with the nip.
4. One thing is certain; rolls and tight turns when done at indicated airspeeds of 300 MPH and over cannot be followed by any Jap plane thus far encountered in this theater."
I am assuming all speeds were in indicated MPH as no one is going to take time to convert to TAS in a dogfight.
For this reason and information it is my belief that the 38L is "undermodeled" and Citabria might just be right.
As to the notion that a twin engined plane won't spin if both engines are turning equally, that is false. Given a sufficient reduction in speed any conventional plane will stall. A stall in anything but a wings level attitude can lead to a spin. Quite a few twin engine planes complete with counter rotating props have spun when slow particularly in the traffic pattern. Having twin engines doesn't guarantee that one wing won't drop lift before the other. If it does then the plane will spin. Many newer twin aircraft have proven this out as inexperienced pilots get them too slow in the pattern.
A spin is a planes way of telling you that one wing can't provide as much lift as the other. The "flying" wing will lift up and the plane will curve around the "dead" wing. The curve around the "dead" wing will maintain the spin as it doesn't get back to flying speed unless corrective action is taken to stop the spin.
Mav
-
Well spinning the P-38 was difficult however, due to neutral forces(other then pilot input) on the roll axis in a stall situation. In AH the nose doesn't even drop if you hold it level...it snap rolls to the right or left, which is kind of annoying (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The biggest problem is that aileron lock up at compression though.
-
aileron lockup at onset of compression is correct
well mabye not lockup but severe degredation in ability better word
-
adios mio...estoy tratando
stalls and spins. mc guires plane didnt spin when it stalled. he performed a high bank turn at low altitude with two 165 gallon drop tanks. even if he didnt stall any plane banked high will drop altitude and it is something you didnt want to perform in any plane at low altitude.
I do not understand why people insist the 38 spun when it was stalled in anything but a wings level flight attitude. too many books point out that you could stall a 38 in a high speed turn and it would just mush out on you or the turn would slacken up, all you had to do to recover was to ease up on the stick.
also as somebody else pointed out even when you have the wings level the 38 will snap into a spin in aces high.
as far as the flight model being limited to not being able to correct the 38s glaring errors thats too bad. it isnt worth the 30 bucks a month. I have 3 other ww2 games I can fly for free that also have incorrect flight models.
I must go check out my joystick. I flew the mustang and it seemed to roll ok, but I am serious I couldnt roll the 38 at any speed.
[This message has been edited by bolillo_loco (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
also with this theory that some seem to have here that any plane when you stalled will spin is true in part, but some of them you had to force them to spin.
the 38s wing stalled from the wing roots out. this meant that not only did it give you alot of warning it kept the plane very controllable.
also since the wing stalled from the roots out the wing lost its ability to hold the airplane in the air and thus it would just nose out or mush out if you will.
the reason it wouldnt spin were two fold as I see it, no propeller torque nor slip stream effects on the fuselage due to counter rotating props and also even though the wing lost its lift it didnt loose it on the outer 1/3rd of the wing, to cause one wing to lift that much more than the other.
since wingspeed at the tips seems to be critical when compaired to wing speed at the roots lets look further at this. the wing outboard the engines still had lift where one wing tip would have more airspeed than the other. inboard of the engine nacells it isnt as critical since both those sections of the wings have very similar air speeds.
I am not talking about a mustang, spitfire, or fw 190 wing that when it stalled the whole wing stalled at once, these are they types that gave you nasty stall habbits. not the 38s.
once again pilots manuals and a cazillion books state "in either high speed or low speed stalls the P-38 would not spin. if flaps and wheels were dropped it had a slight tendency to drop a wing, but once the controlls were eased off the plane would right itself naturly and the wing would pick back up"
do you understand now?
[This message has been edited by bolillo_loco (edited 12-10-2000).]
-
p-38L is pretty neutered. it has always been an easy target in AH but now its even easier. its flaps dont give it a great increase in turn ability so it cant hang with any other aircraft at any speed in AH.
it snap rolls hard if it gets anywhere near a stall.
i wish the 1.03 p-38 stall model was put back on it. at least that one was a little better.
-
Put the P-38L against its historic PAC opponents in a historic setting (ie no arena style combat) and you will see results similar to what the books describe.
Put it in an arena against much faster opponents, tougher opponents(compared to Japanese aircraft), and much more heavily armed opponents, then things will be much different.
You just can't compare historical results to arena combat.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Can you explain to me why being up against more heavily armed and faster planes would effect how the 38 stalls, spins, and how much the fowler flaps contributed to lift? (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/cwm13.gif)
-
Jigster,
The Fowler flaps increased wing area with the first notch, so you get a 13% increase in lift, a 13% increase in drag and a 13% decrease in turn radius. Sustained turning speed will decrease slightly, but not as much as the radius decreased, so the turn rate will increase by about 6%.
Had the flaps not been of fowler type, you would get a 28% increase in drag for your 13% increase in lift.
It is my understanding that the so called butterfly flaps on the Japanese planes work similarly to a fowler flap except they don't extend backwards, they extend downwards becoming individual flying surfaces, rather than an extention of the wing itself, but they still increase the overall lifting area.
-
wells, what do you think:
when the P38 increases the wing area with a fowler flap, doen´t this also reduce the aspect ratio? And do you really think a fowler flap is as good as a clean wing with more area (13% area > 13% more drag)?
niklas
-
hey thats interesting on the japanese type flaps. I have always wondered what they mean by butterfly type flaps.
I am not debating turing ability here. w/o the flaps a 38 should have only a slight edge on a 47 and with the maneouvering flaps it should now have an advantage over the mustang.
now low speed all out turn radius when you use half flaps or more thats a different story a 38 should have a very good edge over almost all the single engined aircraft.
what I am debating is why does the 38 spin when it is stalled? I keep hearing quite a few say that it should spin when it shouldnt spin at all provided both engines are running.
I have read thru the older threads and I feel that the 38 was constantly modeled with worse and worse performance due to a majority seeming to dislike this aircraft. I will not make claims which exaggerate this planes performance, but I have noticed quite a few negative posts about this plane which just were not true or if they are they can be traced to pre P-38J models.
-
sorry I forgot to pose another question for wells.
since the 38 used fowler type flaps which not only had less drag for the same degrees of deflection, but they also provided more wing area and also they increased the wings lift coefficient greatly vs the mustang using the same degree of maneuvering flap use.
since both the 51 and 38 had these flaps lets look at turing performance of these two planes. w/o flaps the mustang should have an edge over the 38. with the flaps the 38 should now have the edge over the mustang enough that after a few turns it should get onto the 51s tail.
use of more flaps only makes it worse for the 51 and the slower it gets the worse it is for the mustang because stall habbits now become an issue.
one more point on the figures that people caculate. the wing root fillets seemed to help the airflow remain laminar to the wing. it is said this lowered the 38s stall speed. are you guys figuring this wing root fillet into your mathmatical work?
-
Niklas,
That's a tough one since the engine nacelles increase the effective aspect ratio, preventing spanwise flow. It would be debatable if the effective aspect ratio wouldn't be greater than the geometric 8.25, even considering tip losses, of which the P-38 has very little with it's very high taper ratio and rounded tips.
The clean stall speed of a P-38J/L is around 115 mph (CAS) at 17500 lbs, which is the same as a P-47D. The P-38 had weak directional stability and high yaw inertia, which is
part of why it was less likely to spin, it just slipped if a wing dropped, without the tail following. The resultant slip, combined with dihedral effect would right the wing again, kindof like a dutch roll effect instead of an incipient spin. Unfortunately, it would seem that gunnery suffered as a result and guys like Bong, preferred to be close before shooting.
Another interesting note is that the power on stall speed was higher than the power off stall speed. This was probably due to the direction of the engine rotation. The angle of attack would be increased on the inner wing portions from propwash, causing them to stall sooner than they would in freestream air.
-
I was kinda being sarcastic but the aerodynamic information is more then welcome (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
wells...
the p38 props rotated: left engine: counterclockwise, right engine: clockwise.
i used to think they rotated like a seminole too but they opposite normal rotation
-
CC Citabria,
I didn't say any different. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jigster, here is what I was referring too.
Citabria wrote: p-38L is pretty neutered. it has always been an easy target in AH but now its even easier. its flaps dont give it a great increase in turn ability so it cant hang with any other aircraft at any speed in AH
Maverick wrote: <snip nice historical tactics discussion> For this reason and information it is my belief that the 38L is "undermodeled" and Citabria might just be right
Now, I'm not arguing that the stall characteristics of the P-38 are correct. Far from it. But I figure its a problem with the core Flight Model and how it deals with twin engine aircraft.
But regardless, you can fix the stall characteristics of the P-38L and its not going to change the effectiveness of this plane in the arena, except in very rare and extreme cases. Which is something that can be said about some quirk with just about every single aircraft.
Why the P-38L Will Always have a difficult Time in the Arena
- Its just too slow against late ETO aircraft. There are very few aircraft that you can disengage from, without a fight to the death.
- Its most effective at high altitude and the fights in the arena are down low.
- Its a BIG target and with high lethality, x4 20mm cannons environment it dies easily to snapshots
- While it turns good for an American plane, its definitely not a TnB aircraft in any way, shape, or form.
- Its got average guns, with a good ammo load. But it definitely is not a "snapshot" aircraft, and it typically requires a tracking shot. See point #1, and what happens is that most planes simply run away from it.
If anything, you guys are talking about how the P-38L is undermodeled, why don't you explore the roll intertia in the plane. Look at the historical descriptions of this aircraft and you will see that it doesn't exhibit the "distinct heisitation" when begining a roll that is frequently described. Now, its sustained roll rate looks to be correct, but its initial roll rate looks to be too high. And the hydraulic's aren't going to change that.
Sorry but no matter what you do, in our arena, facing aircraft from ETO and other late war monsters (ie N1K2 or Ki84), the P-38J or L neither one is not going to shine like it did during the actual war.
Its just too mediocre in too many performance categories, and excells in none.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 12-11-2000).]
-
hmm so far it looks like a twin engine design has a lot of advantages : no torque effect, gentle spin characteristic, better airflow (?), more propwash...
i mean, i read somewhere that every interruption of a wing reduce the quality of the wing.
A single engine design has one wing one interruption
A twin engine design has one wing and three interruptions.
I really have a problem to believe that these interruptions of a wing produce more advantages than disadvantages
-
I will be more than glad to argue the low speed and climb that aces high has modeled into this plane. also I do not argue that the plane has the slowest rate of roll at speeds below 200 mph ias. at 250 mph ias it is not as bad. at 300 mph it can out roll alot of the a/c here. at 350mph it is the best.
at medium to high speeds 109s and spits with heavy controls should not be able to stay with 38ls
also this sim has modeled the 38 10-15mph slower than it was. I see the other planes were modeled to their highest speed why cant the 38?
late model Ls are said to have 1,725hp wep per engine. this gave it a 425mph tas speed in military and 440 mph tas in wep.
38s have always seemed to be modeled to their lowest performance levels and alot of times these are not even met.
also stalls are important.
-
Not all other planes are modelled to their highest speed.
The P-47D-30 seems to be missing the speed and climb gains you would expect it to have over the less powerful D-25.
And don't even ask about the Soviet a/c performance figures in AH. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
ok, but I dont see people bashing the 47. people have skirted my questions on the 38 so what gives? hey corsair seem popular lest model it like corsairs that never even seen combat.
-
Maverick, is this what you were looking for?
http://www.475thfg.org/tactics.htm (http://www.475thfg.org/tactics.htm)
-Westy
-
bolillo..
U can download the very latest version of Aces High, and test all the aircraft to your hearts delight, offline for hours on end, before you decide to spend a single penny on this sim that some us at least enjoy.
You may also find the answers to many of the questions you ask +)
AKSKurj
-
I guess it's not just the luftwobbles that are like that...
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
I've flown that damn p38 more than anyone else who ever played this game
And you know this for a fact, right ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Oh and don't think its just the P-38L that is modeled at performance below the highest recorded in a flight test.
ALL the Russian aircraft have the same affliction.
The Yak-9U which is modeled at a max speed of 417mph at 18k in Aces High, was also tested at 437mph at 18k in real life.
Most pilots hate the Yak as it is.
Imagine if you added 20mph at altitude and 27mph at sea level, reduced its time to climb to 5k meters by 54 seconds, plus increased its turn rate by about 10%.
And this is all based upon solid data.
So Don't feel alone.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
yes I can imagine that russian aircraft also suffer. seems at what ever sim I have played somebody does flight models and their favorite planes always recived performance to their highest figures found.
when I pointed out that the latest -4 corsair would turn worse than a P-47 due to the corsair having the spoiler on the wing which destroyed the planes lift coefficient it didnt take long for the "powers to be" to say it wasnt so because their latest caculations proved the naca data wrong.
I have seen this done at other sims. they did their caculations and had software on their pc to provide data on how the real plane would fly, what I didnt understand is when they said x plane stalled at 120 mph with no flaps when the pilot manual says under the same conditions it should stall at 80 mph. so who would you believe? the "powers to be" at the flight sim modifications, or data that was gathered from a guy going out stalling the plane and people were recording this information?
38s for some reason always attract the most hatred, usually by the same people who do the flight mods and thus their perfomance suffers. I doubt there is a plane that can attract so much controversy than a P-38. I can see that it is pointless to debate the point of errors in flight models here at aces high. I am not buzzsaw from eaw. I do not have the patientes to debate with people that will never admit their errors no matter how much data you find. I gotta give that buzzsaw guy one thing, he sure was patient. you guys have fun with your flight mods. I am sure I wont be missed. I can go play other flight sims that are just as inaccurate for free.
-
BTW, did you ever play WB? The 38J and L were considered "overmodelled" by many when I played it years ago. Pyro did that sim too, so this "anti 38 bias" you claim to see doesn't exist here AFAIK. If I had to bet on who's data was correct, I'd pick Pyro's any day of the week. That said, if you have something new that Pyro hasn't seen, I'm sure he would love to have it.
Download the game and give it a try offline. If it doesn't meet your standards, then by all means don't subscribe. Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 12-12-2000).]
-
bolillo you talk as if we are the sim designers.... WE AREN'T we are the players...
AKSKurj
-
I'll repeat Skurj and myself from the other thread. Why do you care what other players say it should be like? Its not them who are making the FM's.
-
bolillo_loco,
You are a little misguided by what your reading. I Think you should go back and read those post one more time. The NACA documents are right. So are the pilots manual. I have the P-38 manual and the F4U manual.
If you don't believe me ask Vermillion or Wells if a P-47 could turn inside any F4U. Or better yet why don't you ask Pyro or HT when they are online. I'm sure they would be happy to explain it to you.
-
well I have only questioned why the 38 spins when it stalls. nobody has explained why it stans, but quite a few have used broad and vague statements like all planes spin when stalled. I explained why the 38 would not spin.
-
It's not supposed to spin in a conventional stall. It is just supposed to mush forward. However it did have some nasty flat spin and inverted spin characteristics.
-
No thats not true. Even the P-38 will spin when it stalls, unless your going straight and level.
Otherwise, if one wing is slightly higher than the other you will have asymetrical lift over the wings, thereby causing one wing to stall before the other.
And you will spin. Period.
It may not be as bad as other aircraft, but even the P-38 will spin.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
so than explain to me how you figure the 38 should spin? countless reports of 38s both power on, power off, level flight, in banked turns, flaps up, flaps down. it just mushed straight out.
I have yet to hear how any of you figured out why the 38 spins when it is stalled. I would like to be shown how you proved all the pilots and tests wrong. please indulge me. also for you guys who do all these mathmatical calculations, didnt somebody prove that the bumble bee cannot fly due to their calculations?
which is more accurate? the pilots manuals, test results, pilots, and test pilots who flew real planes and recorded the data or the paper and pencil calculations done by a few here with out the benifit of wind tunnels to test their theories nor real aircraft to test their theories with?
[This message has been edited by bolillo_loco (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
oh and by the way vill, I didnt say you couldnt spin a 38. anything is possible, but normal maneouvers ie turns or flying straight or banked 38s did not spin when stalled. what part of the 38 in power on or off and also in turns either low speed or high speed accelerated showed no tendency to spin when stalled isnt clear or easy to understand?
if you wanted to enter a spin it was something you had to force the plane to do and know how to do it. all other aces high planes should spin much more easily than the 38 and corsairs with out spoilers would be among the worst planes here for tendency to spin and spin behavior.
-
Um, Vermillion... The Lightning was in the ETO. Its chief problems were the weather and technical difficulties. The J and L were definitely superior to many German aircraft in late '44 and early '45. Many German aces considered the Lightning the most dangerous opponent they faced. It was definitely not mediocre. I don't think a plane that was literally twice or three times the weight of a Me-109G or K that could outclimb, outrun, and outturn the aformention aircraft would be mediocre, not even by the standard of early 1945.
There is data to support this. There's data to support your point as well. And I can't find any of it right now. But as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any historical info anywhere that indicates the the P-38L should do as poorly as it does in the arena, except perhaps for the altitude and more or less level playing field with regard to pilot skill.
-
Ispar, I know the Lightning was in the ETO, but comparitively its service record there was quite poor compared to the PTO. Why? Because it faced a quite different enemy in a very different set of circumstances.
If you have any data that shows that a late P-38J or L model can outrun or outclimb a late Me109G (10) of K model, I would love to see it. Everything I have seen says that the opposite is true. Out turn maybe, but the others?
The reason that the P-38L is so mediocre in the AH arena, has nothing to do with its historic or modeled performance. It has too do with the fact that its flown nothing like it was in real life. IE at high altitudes where its turbosuperchargers and wide wingspan gave it an advantage. Down low (under 20k), the P-38 is nothing special in any regards, except if you are flying against slow Japanese fighters like the A6M5.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
well since nobody wants to explain why this plane handles as poorly as it does, ie spinning ugly when it shouldnt. lets look at the speed of the plane.
38H could not make its 1,600 hp wep above 10,000ft due to innercooler limitations. it was restricted to 1,250 hp maybe 1,350 on the outside, but that is max. it still managed to do 400-405 mph on this restricted hp. now explain why the 414 mph is so widely accepted when you consider
405 mph 2,500 hp 38H
414 mph 3,200 hp 38J/L early
414 mph 3,450 hp 38L late
explain the reason why it only gained 9 mph on 700-950 hp? this is reason enough to believe the 425 mph speed for the J and 440 mph speed for the L all of these at altitudes of 25-30,000ft.
J/Ls didnt suffer from turbo problems and innercooler problems as did the H models. engine reliablity was no longer a problem as was in the H
-
To cure the engine heat problems, they put bigger intakes on the engine nacelles -> MORE DRAG.
-
the bearded chin was not responsible for the hundreds of lbs of drag it would take to slow the plane down when you consider the amount of thrust gained by the hp.
-
The biggest problem with the J model was the lack of power-assisted ailerones. The Lightening was famous for its compression in dives.
This proved a huge problem in the ETO becuase the LW would dive through the bomber box and the -38J couldn't dive after it for long. Plus (according to many sources I've read) the LW would split-S to escape danger. The -38J couldn't follow then either.
Reading many accounts from -38 pilots in "The History of the 364th FG" all point to this as one reason they didn't score as well in the -38 as they did when they got -51D's. Most of the 364th's pilots were very reluctant to give up their -38's, my grandfather included.
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Dune said:
> Most of the 364th's pilots were very reluctant to give up their -38's, my
> grandfather included.
Give him my thanks for his work, he was THERE.
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
The later P-38's gained a lot more horsepower, but could not harness that extra power well because they DID NOT recieve signifigantly better propellers. Power is worthless unless the plane can use it.
In addition to the larger radiator intakes, later P-38's were also heavier and had things like rocket stubs adding to drag. The P-38J was actually faster than the P-38L, but neither could do 440. Maybe 425 for the P-38J.
Nonetheless, the P-38 was an excellent plane. But with a unit price of about $125,000, it simply was too expensive compared to the likes of the P-51 which went for about $50,000 each.
J_A_B
-
I think I shot up Cits p-38 today but he got away so I'm not sure.
neener neener neener (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-- senna
Originally posted by Citabria:
bolillo I've used the AH P-38 as my main ride since it was added to AH and its latest flight model in 1.04 is the worst it has ever been.
I have a question for you bolillo:
when the p38 compressed did the ailerons also cease to function? in Aces High they do.
it now stalls and instantly snap rolls at any speed. (I lobbied hard to correct this and it was toned down although not fixed in 1.03) the P-38 stall model is seriously flawed in 1.04 again with new flight model tweaks
its compressibility is total past around 475 (lower at hi alt) HTC used the anti stick stiring code to simulate compressibility it seams.
there is no buffeting at any speed or prgressive nose tuck, its all or nothing stall/mach.6 or otherwise.
as for speed and climb the actual AH P-38 is slower by a few mph and does not climb as well as in the Aces High web page charts
and yes this is the slowest speeds available for the P-38 and its even slower than them.
but aside from how screwed up the flight model on the P-38 is I love the challenge of flying it so I still recomend it for experts looking for a challenge.
but those are just stats...
playing the game with the plane is always a bit different than what the stats say:
what the P-38L does well in AH:
great vertical fighter above 20k
great buff killer with nose guns
good jabo
good dive
good climb
good speed above 20k vs most other fighters
good roll performance at high speed
what the p38L does poorly in AH:
weak turn ability (turns only slightly better than p47)
disgusting stall characteristics
slow top speed at low altitude
poor roll response at low speed
guns have weak snapshot hitting power (needs tracking shot to damage)
compressibility a big problem at high altitude in AH even w dive flaps because aileron roll control almost nonexistant when compressed although the elevator is usable with dive flaps extended.
I know I sound critical of the P-38L but I still love flying it.
so if someone as critical about the plane as me still loves to fly it in the game it must be doing somthing right. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
give the Aces High P-38L a try... its got problems but its still not half bad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 12-09-2000).]
-
forget about seeing an accurate P-38. just read the above statements, you see alot of anit 38 boys there, so what if a 38 gained 1000 hp it wasnt any faster and a 38H according to them cause the props couldnt utilize the hp....oh brother please spare me! you dont expect me to believe that do you? god you guys are a riot! look how wells seems to avoid common sense, he can come up with all kinds of figures to support his favorite aircraft. this is no better than wurgers eca online. you might as well give it up and look for another game, unless you like uber corsairs.
-
bolilo, what makes you so sure that the claimed topspeed for the P38-H is correct?
-
Anyone claim to know the fully loaded weight of a P-38L with 100% fuel and ammo?
Anyone know how much the AH P-38L is modeled at??
-
Let's add some real life persepctive on the 38. This doesn't answer any epcific question on the AH P-38 but it just makes for thought. I high lighted on section in particular for the realism Nazi's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
A letter written by Col. Harold Rau,
Commanding Officer of the 20th Fighter Group.
20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by
the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC.
They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended
in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours
on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands
now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong
emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how
little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational
status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume
that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of
twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is
on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance.
He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is
pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external
tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator,
which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is
off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be
on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what
to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power
and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he
reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to
main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button,
puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations),
increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun
heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns
on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has
probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong.
Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before
increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure.
Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive
cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost
as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive
action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the
cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before
they could get going.
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do
about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five
minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble".
This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank
switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to
increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure,
however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who
is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job
ahead.
6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past
several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again
by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking
Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about
our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous
mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the
Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a
unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure
regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a
single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device
like that in combat.
7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never
been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means
when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just
another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of
the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a
really effective combat airplane.
8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the
gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector
handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The
toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate
with gloves on.
9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a
fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat
for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying
to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe
that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among
the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is
difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on
the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going
into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to
be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around
fighting airplane.
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.
[** It is worth noting that most of Rau's suggestions were addressed
in the P-38L-5-LO, including automatic powerplant controls]