Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: WING47 on May 22, 2011, 10:52:56 AM
-
I know many of my posts have been about the 51, however I have some interesting info about the P-38. First off, late model 38s had something called hydraulically boosted controls, which gave them the edge in high and medium speeds against just about everything, even the spitfire. So it really frustrates me to see 38 pilots having to complain about spixteens all the time. I flew with the 86th Adromini a while back so I know what their talking about. The 38 should, at least in my opinion, be a much more dangerous warbird. However no all P-38s had this, early models COULD NOT TURN according to actual WWII vets that I talked to. They were very difficult to turn at high and medium speeds. A 109 or 190 would out turn these early 38 models all the time. In my personal opinion Hitech needs to take a look at this as this aircraft should be feared by everyone in everything.
-
The aircraft doesn't have as much to do with the equation as the pilot does. Fear the pilot not the plane.
I have seen a few P-38 drivers that will convice you that this plane is dangerous enough as it is.
-
Sir... i dont think a 190 can outturn a p38 in any conditions except at real high speeds (400+)
P38L has boosted ailerons and it can roll like crazy at high speeds. And even the earlyer models are pretty decent up to 400-450mph, their characteristics are close to the 109 G-6.
Have you ever fought against the 80th "Headhunters"? Try it once, great fun ;)
-
The aircraft doesn't have as much to do with the equation as the pilot does. Fear the pilot not the plane.
I have seen a few P-38 drivers that will convice you that this plane is dangerous enough as it is.
:aok
-
Sir... i dont think a 190 can outturn a p38 in any conditions except at real high speeds (400+)
P38L has boosted ailerons and it can roll like crazy at high speeds. And even the earlyer models are pretty decent up to 400-450mph, their characteristics are close to the 109 G-6.
Have you ever fought against the 80th "Headhunters"? Try it once, great fun ;)
ill look em up
-
and even mid war 38js can out turna 190 easly and some 109s
-
and even mid war 38js can out turna 190 easly and some 109s
Which 109s? I was dueling a few times with Pawz, 38 vs 109, and i could get him. NOT couse im better than him. The sustained performance is about the same, but the 109 can fly slower, has a tighter turn radius and has torque what helps in the extremely low-speed reversals. The 38 only has real advantage in the ropes, can stay uphill amazing long, and has to use it to force the victory.
-
should be feared by everyone in everything.
Boo!! :neener:
-
I know many of my posts have been about the 51, however I have some interesting info about the P-38. First off, late model 38s had something called hydraulically boosted controls, which gave them the edge in high and medium speeds against just about everything, even the spitfire. So it really frustrates me to see 38 pilots having to complain about spixteens all the time. I flew with the 86th Adromini a while back so I know what their talking about. The 38 should, at least in my opinion, be a much more dangerous warbird. However no all P-38s had this, early models COULD NOT TURN according to actual WWII vets that I talked to. They were very difficult to turn at high and medium speeds. A 109 or 190 would out turn these early 38 models all the time. In my personal opinion Hitech needs to take a look at this as this aircraft should be feared by everyone in everything.
Sir, no disrespect intended, but like a lot of posters I think you are looking at the issue of turning without understanding the science involved.
First of all, the phrases "medium" and "high" speed aren't very specific. The key speed for a given airplane in a given configuration is corner velocity, the minimum speed that the airplane can pull max Gs, which yields that aircraft's maximum turn rate. Above this speed an airplane's turn is limited by Gs, below it is limited by available lift (stall.)
When two airplanes are above both their corner velocities, (probably what most players mean by "high speed") the limiting factor is the G loading that either the aircraft or the pilot can stand. Since the "pilot" in AH is limited to 6gs, that means the rate and radius any two aircraft can pull at high speed is always exactly the same! Same speed, same G-loading,=same turn rate and radius.
This is, UNLESS one aircraft is suffering from an increase in control forces preventing it from pulling max Gs. Now in AHII, the virtual pilot can pull 50 pounds of stick force all day long. This makes him a rather strong fellow. At *practical dogfighting airspeeds*, neither the 38 nor the 109 suffer unduly from control forces, even though they had this reputation in R/L. You have to take both of them close to the 400 IAS mark to reach the point you can't pull max Gs. Also, did the 38L have a boosted elevator? I don't *think* it did, and that is what would make a difference in turning at very high airspeeds. Further, the Spit had no reputation for having a heavy elevator that would hamper it at high airspeeds.
-
I flew with the 86th Adromini a while back so I know what their talking about.
Did you mean the 82nd FG "Adorimini"? And no, none of us old 82nd members have ever claimed a single thing you had said. And no, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
First off, late model 38s had something called hydraulically boosted controls, which gave them the edge in high and medium speeds against just about everything, even the spitfire.
We have a variant of the P38 and that is the "L" model. They are hydraulically boosted airlerons. Yes, the P38L does have a significant advantage at speeds greater than 325 mph. Turn rate at those speeds remains the same as in the P38J though.
The 38 should, at least in my opinion, be a much more dangerous warbird.
People's opinions mean nothing and HTC needs more than just pilots' accounts. HTC needs actual facts and data, along with numbers that support peoples' claims, none which you have provided. The P38 in game is as dangerous as any aircraft in the game.
However no all P-38s had this, early models COULD NOT TURN according to actual WWII vets that I talked to. They were very difficult to turn at high and medium speeds.
ALL models of the P38s can turn. Granted, the earlier models had a tougher time maneuvering at high speeds than the later models, it does not mean that they could not turn. Again, where are your numbers and data that supports these pilots' claims?
according to actual WWII vets that I talked to.
Who are these WW2 vets? What unit did they serve in? What year? What theatre of war? How long did they fly the P38s? Did they score any victories? More information would be nice. For the time being, I can only assume that you haven't done much research and that your claims are merely absurd and meaningless.
So it really frustrates me to see 38 pilots having to complain about spixteens all the time.
I am a dedicated 38 driver and the only time I have trouble with Spit16s is when they are on my 6 or when they are picking. Any other time they over shoot and are generally easy kills.
A 109 or 190 would out turn these early 38 models all the time. In my personal opinion Hitech needs to take a look at this as this aircraft should be feared by everyone in everything.
Personal opinions are void without facts if you are asking HTC to make a change in the flight model. In WW2, the earlier model P38s scored more air to air victories than the J or L. This was because they were in combat before the P47 and P51 entered service. When these later model P38s (J and L) entered service, they spent a greater amount of time doing ground support- dive bombing and strafing ground targets. A 190 cannot outturn a P38 at any speed. The only thing the 190 and 109 has is roll rate and a slightly higher sustained rate of climb. But since they only have one engine, the 38 will hang in the vertical much better than the 190 and 109. Their engine torque often pulls them back nose down.
WING47, I suggest going to either the TA or DA and hooking up with a P38 stick. He can show you what it can do. I think you would be very surprised. In the meantime, I suggest reading some books before making absurd claims at how certain planes are not modeled correctly.
-
Did you mean the 82nd FG "Adorimini"? And no, none of us old 82nd members have ever claimed a single thing you had said. And no, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
We have a variant of the P38 and that is the "L" model. They are hydraulically boosted airlerons. Yes, the P38L does have a significant advantage at speeds greater than 325 mph. Turn rate at those speeds remains the same as in the P38J though.
People's opinions mean nothing and HTC needs more than just pilots' accounts. HTC needs actual facts and data, along with numbers that support peoples' claims, none which you have provided. The P38 in game is as dangerous as any aircraft in the game.
ALL models of the P38s can turn. Granted, the earlier models had a tougher time maneuvering at high speeds than the later models, it does not mean that they could not turn. Again, where are your numbers and data that supports these pilots' claims?
Who are these WW2 vets? What unit did they serve in? What year? What theatre of war? How long did they fly the P38s? Did they score any victories? More information would be nice. For the time being, I can only assume that you haven't done much research and that your claims are merely absurd and meaningless.
I am a dedicated 38 driver and the only time I have trouble with Spit16s is when they are on my 6 or when they are picking. Any other time they over shoot and are generally easy kills.
Personal opinions are void without facts if you are asking HTC to make a change in the flight model. In WW2, the earlier model P38s scored more air to air victories than the J or L. This was because they were in combat before the P47 and P51 entered service. When these later model P38s (J and L) entered service, they spent a greater amount of time doing ground support- dive bombing and strafing ground targets. A 190 cannot outturn a P38 at any speed. The only thing the 190 and 109 has is roll rate and a slightly higher sustained rate of climb. But since they only have one engine, the 38 will hang in the vertical much better than the 190 and 109. Their engine torque often pulls them back nose down.
WING47, I suggest going to either the TA or DA and hooking up with a P38 stick. He can show you what it can do. I think you would be very surprised. In the meantime, I suggest reading some books before making absurd claims at how certain planes are not modeled correctly.
He was in the 82nd?
Oh...and i like my response better :D
-
WING47,
Don't fall for the History Channel style hyperbole. The P-38 in AH is easily one of the best fighters, but there never was a P-38 in reality that would utterly dominate all of its contemporaries the way you describe.
As Plazus said, we have the P-38L with those boosted controls, and hence it is the best rolling aircraft in AH over ~400mph. You can't do anything to make it turn better with boosted controls, certainly not better than the Spitfire which had notoriously light elevator controls, even at high speeds.
-
He was in the 82nd?
Oh...and i like my response better :D
:lol He was never in the 82nd, but he tagged along with us a bit from time to time.
-
Ok ok, early Luft planes all te way to the g14 38's are very outclassed. Late war 109's and 190's will have a helluva time turning with a deascent 38j/L.
190a5 and turn with a p47, a 38 outturns a jug at slow speeds. Therfore a 190 can't out turn a 38, even the a5 (the best turning 190)
-
:lol He was never in the 82nd, but he tagged along with us a bit from time to time.
Ahhh...rgr Just needed a sanity check
-
JOACH1M,
Ok ok, early Luft planes all te way to the g14 38's are very outclassed.
This is incorrect. The early 38 models can easily handle the early war Luft rides. The mid war P38, that being the P38J, can easily handle any mid war and late war Luft aircraft. When the P38 first went into service, it was one of the fastest combat aircraft in the world, being the first to achieve 400 mph in level flight at critical altitude. None of the aircraft during this time could catch it, save for the Mosquito later on. The earlier P38s are a fair match for any early Luft plane- but it really just depends on the pilot, not the plane.
Late war 109's and 190's will have a helluva time turning with a deascent 38j/L.
Remember that it is not the plane, but the pilot. And yes, A P38J/L pilot can handle any late war Luft plane, save for the 262, in an even fight (assuming the 38 pilot knows what he is doing).
190a5 and turn with a p47, a 38 outturns a jug at slow speeds. Therfore a 190 can't out turn a 38, even the a5 (the best turning 190)
A P47 has a tighter turn radius than a P38. However, the P38 has a significantly better sustained turn rate. The 190 doesn't really come close to matching the P38's turn radius and rate. The P47 is only marginally better in the turn rate category than the 190.
Your argument cannot be used as a basis of which plane is better. There are more complex issues involved, and much of that is centered around pilot skill.
-
If you put a p38G on a 109F the 109 will make it difficult for the p38 to kill.
In pilot skill part, I ran into a "80th" dude in a 38L and me in my k4 and he was clearly out turnin me in a downward scissors, but I just ended taking it to the vert and playing E game.
Fear the pilot, not the plane...
-
Turn rates don't matter unless you are into the luftberry type of flying, thanks for playing.
-
Dudes, it all depends on the eyepoint.
In my g6 i outturn/scissor every p38 and im able to kill them unless they have serious advantage at the beginning.
I bet the better p38 pilots out there have the same experience about the 109s, of course with the opposite result.
I THINK the 109F completely outclasses the p38G, and the G-6 is in par with the J/L, being a lil bit better in close combat while the 38 is a better energy/BnZ-fighter. Its my opinion, based on interaction with some better P38 pilots.
<S>
Edit: the g6 is almost in par with Las, Jaks, Ki84s, ki-61s, p40s, F6Fs etc from the same category, depending mostly on the pilot who will be the winner. The p38 CAN do the same, and with a decent pilot who has good SA in the 1v1 and able to realize when he will be unstoppable in the rope, its a real decent turnfighter.
-
Turn rates don't matter unless you are into the luftberry type of flying, thanks for playing.
It does matter outside of the luftberry, just not as much. The faster you can change direction the more options you have.
-
The 109F should hold most of the cards against the 38G IMHO.
-
The 109F should hold most of the cards against the 38G IMHO.
ahhhh .... what do you know ? :neener:
good news is ya don't run into too many F's these days :devil
-
If you put a p38G on a 109F the 109 will make it difficult for the p38 to kill.
Perhaps, but 109s don't really like turning to the right ya know... :neener:
Fear the pilot, not the plane...
Precisely the point of my whole argument. ;)
-
good news is ya don't run into too many F's these days :devil
I'm taking this as a chelenge...FLY ONE O NINE EFF! '
-
I THINK the 109F completely outclasses the p38G
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8996/laughingdogf.gif)
-
I have seen some great 38 drivers, most are just meat in the fridge......same with spits...LA's.....N1K's...ECT...ECT
the plane it self is minor, I have found it don't matter what the "paper" says a plane can do, its what the pilot controlling said plane, can do with that plane.
now that's not to say you should not learn the "paper" of each and every plane, but to hold that as gospel is bad.
Understanding E and being able to judge an nme's E state is probably one of the most important aspects of dog-fighting.
my .02$
-
the plane it self is minor, I have found it don't matter what the "paper" says a plane can do, its what the pilot controlling said plane, can do with that plane.
now that's not to say you should not learn the "paper" of each and every plane, but to hold that as gospel is bad.
Applying the "paper" differences well is what makes a good pilot in any dissimilar ACM.
On "paper" the P-38 is a real crap plane. Not fast, not a great climber, does not turn exceptionally well, even the roll rate is pedestrian at most speeds...IF it were single engine it would really suck. IF. Understanding the torquelessness that makes it a unique fighter is the key of every dangerous P-38 pilot.
-
WING47,
Don't fall for the History Channel style hyperbole. The P-38 in AH is easily one of the best fighters, but there never was a P-38 in reality that would utterly dominate all of its contemporaries the way you describe.
As Plazus said, we have the P-38L with those boosted controls, and hence it is the best rolling aircraft in AH over ~400mph. You can't do anything to make it turn better with boosted controls, certainly not better than the Spitfire which had notoriously light elevator controls, even at high speeds.
One things folks need to keep in mind when talking about the 38L is that it got into the game late, when 38s in air combat were a rarity. The 38s did most of their killing from 42-44 and the 38L only arrived in the ETO in October 44 when the 38s were ground attack birds. This is the same time frame for the PTO and MTO was later then that, again when the 38s along with most fighters were dropping bombs for lack of air to air targets.
The "aces' did their killing in earlier birds.
Kind of the same as the 51 drivers with the majority of the "aces' doing their killing in 51Bs prior to D-Day. Same with the Jug driver Aces. Most think of Gabby Gabreski's D-25, but he did the majority of his work in a razorback Jug. Bob Johnson got all his in earlier D model Razorbacks as well.
As the late birds are also the surviving warbirds, most folks know only of that particular version. As with anything the last models were the most refined because of the work done in the earlier models.
-
I heard it was a bomber...where are you guys getting this fighter stuff from :D
-
Time for my favorite combat report of WW2 :)
Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
-
The aircraft doesn't have as much to do with the equation as the pilot does. Fear the pilot not the plane.
I have seen a few P-38 drivers that will convice you that this plane is dangerous enough as it is.
:aok +10
Ask Silat, Twinboom, Plazus, or any member of the "Headhunter's" how dangerous that aircraft is. Agree wholeheartedly with this post.
-
P38s are for suckers. :bhead
-
:aok +10
Ask Silat, Twinboom, Plazus, or any member of the "Headhunter's" how dangerous that aircraft is. Agree wholeheartedly with this post.
Darn right that 38 is dangerous. I get killed in mine all the time!
-
Darn right that 38 is dangerous. I get killed in mine all the time!
:lol................me too :aok
-
there are only two planes i fear when i fly my hurricane MkIa . that's a niki and P38 (especially when pawz is flying it) . P38 can turn very well , go vert and dump E fast to force the over shoot. It's what P38 pilots in ETO found and in the PTO they were a menace to Zero's . P38's had a great kill ratio against the zero compared to USN fighters . I try to hit P38's before anything else in a furball .
If i see a spit XVI (IX) and a P38 heading for me i'll hit the 38 first.
-
there are only two planes i fear when i fly my hurricane MkIa . that's a niki and P38 (especially when pawz is flying it) . P38 can turn very well , go vert and dump E fast to force the over shoot. It's what P38 pilots in ETO found and in the PTO they were a menace to Zero's . P38's had a great kill ratio against the zero compared to USN fighters . I try to hit P38's before anything else in a furball .
If i see a spit XVI (IX) and a P38 heading for me i'll hit the 38 first.
The Spit Usually hits me first, then I get the Collision Message as I break to avoid it and down goes Red!
-
P38's had a great kill ratio against the zero compared to USN fighters .
where are you getting your facts regarding the P-38's besting the F4U series or the F6f series against a6m series?
I thought the F6f held the best kill ratio
some facts stating otherwise would be nice to read
TC
-
where are you getting your facts regarding the P-38's besting the F4U series or the F6f series against a6m series?
I thought the F6f held the best kill ratio
some facts stating otherwise would be nice to read
TC
Indeed TC, the F6F shot down more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47 and P-51 COMBINED! During the war, the F6F kill to loss ratio was 19/1.
McCampbell, the Navy's highest scoring ace, ran up his 34 kills in just one carrier deployment (about 6 months), whereas Bong needed four times that duration (a month shy of two years) to reach 34. Also, on October 24, 1944, during a single sortie, McCampbell shot down 9 fighters, with two probables (seen on fire, but not seen to crash). His wingman splashed 6, with another 3 damaged. McCampbell's 9 kills was the single sortie record for the Allies. He briefly led Bong, but he was unable to go for the record when his air group (which he commanded), rotated off of Essex and returned to the States. McCampbell was also the only American pilot to shoot down 5 or more on two occasions.
-
The 38 guys ran out of targets too. The carrier guys were still finding them. The last kills for the 80th Headhunters was December 30, 1944. In fact the entire 8th Fighter Group didn't claim another kill until August 14, 1945 and it was 4 kills which was that Fighter Groups total for 1945. They ended up doing lots of ground pounding in support of the ground guys as the Japanese Army birds just quit showing up. The 475th Fighter Group with all 38s only claimed 19 in all of 1945.
If you were an air to air guy, the place to be was in a Navy bird in particular after 1944.
-
If you were an air to air guy, the place to be was in a Navy bird in particular after 1944.
The lack of Japanese opposition was a problem for the P-39, P-40 and P-47 guys as well. These fighters lacked the range to take to the fight to the Japanese. Eventually, the Japanese Army and Navy fighters were pulled back to defend the PI and the home islands. On the other hand, the Navy pilots had the distinct advantage of having their mobile airfields take them to the enemy. McCampbell's Air Group destroyed about 365 Japanese aircraft on the ground (over 100 at Rabaul alone), and almost as many in the air.
Like the 475th, the 49th FG found targets few and far between after the PI was recaptured. Meanwhile, the Navy was beginning raids on Japan and opposition was plentiful. McCampbell's Group didn't get in on this bounty, they were already out of the combat area by then.
-
I know many of my posts have been about the 51, however I have some interesting info about the P-38. First off, late model 38s had something called hydraulically boosted controls, which gave them the edge in high and medium speeds against just about everything, even the spitfire.
The L and the late model Js with the boosted ailerons only improved roll performance at high speeds and it didn't give it the edge against a Spitfire at any speeds, especially medium speeds.
So it really frustrates me to see 38 pilots having to complain about spixteens all the time. I flew with the 86th Adromini a while back so I know what their talking about. The 38 should, at least in my opinion, be a much more dangerous warbird.
I don't hear any of the dedicated veteran P-38 drivers complain about the Spitfire XVI or any other Spitfire for that matter, those that do complain are usually your less experienced P-38 drivers.
The P-38, in the hands of an experienced pilot, is a very dangerous plane and this game reflects that. The only time the P-38 isn't a threat is at the hands of an inexperienced pilot.
ack-ack
-
The L and the late model Js with the boosted ailerons only improved roll performance at high speeds and it didn't give it the edge against a Spitfire at any speeds, especially medium speeds.
I don't hear any of the dedicated veteran P-38 drivers complain about the Spitfire XVI or any other Spitfire for that matter, those that do complain are usually your less experienced P-38 drivers.
The P-38, in the hands of an experienced pilot, is a very dangerous plane and this game reflects that. The only time the P-38 isn't a threat is at the hands of an inexperienced pilot.
ack-ack
absolutely I high lighted the most important part :joystick:
-
I think the 38 is easy mode cause I can't fly anything esle anymore...Stupid torque! :bolt:
-
The lack of Japanese opposition was a problem for the P-39, P-40 and P-47 guys as well. These fighters lacked the range to take to the fight to the Japanese. Eventually, the Japanese Army and Navy fighters were pulled back to defend the PI and the home islands. On the other hand, the Navy pilots had the distinct advantage of having their mobile airfields take them to the enemy. McCampbell's Air Group destroyed about 365 Japanese aircraft on the ground (over 100 at Rabaul alone), and almost as many in the air.
Like the 475th, the 49th FG found targets few and far between after the PI was recaptured. Meanwhile, the Navy was beginning raids on Japan and opposition was plentiful. McCampbell's Group didn't get in on this bounty, they were already out of the combat area by then.
I wonder how many birds the Navy guys chopped down over Okinawa with the Kamakazi attacks? I suppose the other inevitable problem for the Japanese, on top of the superiority of the Hellcat was the caliber of pilots they were able to put up in 44-45. 'Turkey Shoot' was no doubt the right name :)
-
About everyone saying the P38 isnt such a great plane in Aces high, well you are wrong. Only reason why pilots on aces high are having probs with the plane is because its so big and its a very complicated aircraft to control. I personally love the p38 and knows how to make it operate well. But again its a very pretty plane so i dont think much experience pilots will tell u the tricks. BTW its Rud3boi. :rock
-
About everyone saying the P38 isnt such a great plane in Aces high, well you are wrong. Only reason why pilots on aces high are having probs with the plane is because its so big and its a very complicated aircraft to control. I personally love the p38 and knows how to make it operate well. But again its a very pretty plane so i dont think much experience pilots will tell u the tricks. BTW its Rud3boi. :rock
Almost every one of the guys saying it is bad is a P-38 fan who is deadly in it. They are saying those things very, very tongue in cheek.
-
About everyone saying the P38 isnt such a great plane in Aces high, well you are wrong. Only reason why pilots on aces high are having probs with the plane is because its so big and its a very complicated aircraft to control. I personally love the p38 and knows how to make it operate well. But again its a very pretty plane so i dont think much experience pilots will tell u the tricks. BTW its Rud3boi. :rock
I don't suppose you could do me a solid and teach Guppy your tricks? I'm getting tired of having to interview
new crewchiefs after the old ones burn out trying to put his 38s back together.
-
I don't suppose you could do me a solid and teach Guppy your tricks? I'm getting tired of having to interview
new crewchiefs after the old ones burn out trying to put his 38s back together.
Rud is responsible for a couple of those crew chief meltdowns :)
-
there are only two planes i fear when i fly my hurricane MkIa . that's a niki and P38 (especially when pawz is flying it) . P38 can turn very well , go vert and dump E fast to force the over shoot. It's what P38 pilots in ETO found and in the PTO they were a menace to Zero's . P38's had a great kill ratio against the zero compared to USN fighters . I try to hit P38's before anything else in a furball .
If i see a spit XVI (IX) and a P38 heading for me i'll hit the 38 first.
The P38 is amongst the worst turning aircraft in the game. You can find the charts at the AH Trainers website.
Vs the Zeke's the best attribute the P38 has was speed and a matching or slightly better climb.
The USN's F6F's had more kills that the USAAF's P38's.
The P38 needs speed and alt to be in its prime. Get it below 250mph and below 2000ft it is quite handicapped.
-
On "paper" the P-38 is a real crap plane. Not fast, not a great climber, does not turn exceptionally well, even the roll rate is pedestrian at most speeds...IF it were single engine it would really suck. IF. Understanding the torquelessness that makes it a unique fighter is the key of every dangerous P-38 pilot.
Boy, are you sure wrong. On "paper" the P-38 is not a "real crap plane", nor is what you listed accurate at all.
ack-ack
-
The P38 is amongst the worst turning aircraft in the game. You can find the charts at the AH Trainers website.
Without flaps it is, but with the aid of flaps it was quite maneuverable in both real life and in game.
Vs the Zeke's the best attribute the P38 has was speed and a matching or slightly better climb.
The P-38 outclassed the Zeke in every aspect but turn. A P-38 was able to turn with a Zeke for 1-2 turns, if the Lightning didn't get a kill in that time all the pilot would need to do is enter into a shallow climb, extend out of gun range and the enter into a shallow spiral climb to regain the advantage and reset the fight. By the way, this was a tactic used by USAAF and USN, regardless of the plane was flown, whether it be a P-38 or a Hellcat.
The USN's F6F's had more kills that the USAAF's P38's.
The P-38 had more kills of any of the USAAF planes and also out of the USAAF planes, fielded the most aces in the PTO. The P-38, along other planes like the P-40, P-39 and Wildcat broke the IJAF and IJNAF's back between 1942-1943 in the Southwest and Central Pacific area. The Hellcat appeared at the time both the IJAAF and IJNAF started to decline in both pilot and ground crew quality, which culminated in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Hellcat was like the P-51D in the ETO, a little too late to party for the fighting but early enough to grab the glory.
The P38 needs speed and alt to be in its prime.
All planes need speed to be in its prime, the P-38 isn't special in this area.
Get it below 250mph and below 2000ft it is quite handicapped.
Maybe for someone like yourself that isn't very good in a P-38 and doesn't quite know how to fly one, being under 250mph IAS or below 2,000ft would be handicapped but those that know how to fly the P-38 properly, being low and slow in a Lightning isn't handicapping to us at all.
ack-ack
-
Boy, are you sure wrong. On "paper" the P-38 is not a "real crap plane", nor is what you listed accurate at all.
ack-ack
It it neither fast nor an exceptional climber/accelerator by LW standards. It is the best low alt climber in the USAAF arsenal, but that field is not brilliant compared to the plane set as a whole. A P-51D actually has a smaller turn radius...
The 109K4 has has climb rate almost 1000fpm greater, and a minimum turn radius almost 1/3rd smaller than the 38. Yet a fight between a 38 and a Kurt is an even matchup. The difference is that the P-38 is perfectly controllable while utilizing full power at ridiculously slow air speeds where a single engine job would be dropping a wing and unable to roll effectively in both directions.
-
The P38 needs speed and alt to be in its prime. Get it below 250mph and below 2000ft it is quite handicapped.
The deadliest 38 is the one still smoothly tracking you for guns at less than a 100mph IAS, while your own plane is unable to raise its nose at those speeds.
-
sorry for the delay . The P38 in the early part of the pacific war was very much feared . yes the F6 and F4u had better K/d ratio at the end of the war but the P38 lead the war in the opening years.
-
The P38 needs speed and alt to be in its prime. Get it below 250mph and below 2000ft it is quite handicapped.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6568/tumblrlhwpljlpwh1qebmtc.gif)
The deadliest 38 is the one still smoothly tracking you for guns at less than a 100mph IAS, while your own plane is unable to raise its nose at those speeds.
He has seen this first hand wink wink :old: heya`s bnz
-
From what Ive heard and read on here, the 38L has the "boosted" controls such as ailerons and dive brakes, and the 38G/J do not.
-
A P-51D actually has a smaller turn radius...
Actually it does not. I have flown against good P51 sticks and have easily out turned them in my P38G/J/L below 300 mph. At slow speeds, a P38 can practically dance circles around a P51's head. I have seen it all too often.
I like how you insist that the P38 wasn't all that great. I would love to see the faces of the P38 aces that flew them in WW2 when you try to tell them that their aircraft wasn't all that great.
-
Boosted ailerons only on the L. The "dive brake" isn't really that at all. It's a special flap designed to alter the airflow going around the plane at higher speeds that had a tendency to slam onto the elevator making maneuver in pitch difficult to impossible as speed increased. It only helps a little bit. Go fast enough and you'll still lock up. Try using that thing as an actual dive brake in a steep dive and you'll see what I mean. It hardly has any effect in level flight much unlike the dive brakes on our actual dive bombers.
-
Actually it does not. I have flown against good P51 sticks and have easily out turned them in my P38G/J/L below 300 mph. At slow speeds, a P38 can practically dance circles around a P51's head. I have seen it all too often.
The P-51D has a smaller turn radius than the J/L. Check the pertinent sources, such as Mosc's comparisons, before you opine. What the P-38 DOES do well is sustain a higher rate of turn and handle slow flight so well that relative turn radius hardly matters. If a P-51/P-47 gets all flaps out and forces the beginning of a flat scissors where turn radius would be advantageous, the 38 easily counters by being able to introduce a vertical element at virtually any airspeed.
I like how you insist that the P38 wasn't all that great. I would love to see the faces of the P38 aces that flew them in WW2 when you try to tell them that their aircraft wasn't all that great.
I like how your reading comprehension is so poor that you THINK I am saying the P-38 isn't all that great.
-
All these numbers are confusing. That is why I am a dedicated GV'er. I'll put my Jeep up against anyone in here. I can turn it with the best.
All 38 buff drivers are dweebs.
Ban F3 in all planes that Ghi flies.
Get your pets vaccinated.
Hug your Mom.
Now that this is known we can close this thread.
-
All planes need speed to be in its prime, the P-38 isn't special in this area.
Maybe for someone like yourself that isn't very good in a P-38 and doesn't quite know how to fly one, being under 250mph IAS or below 2,000ft would be handicapped but those that know how to fly the P-38 properly, being low and slow in a Lightning isn't handicapping to us at all.
ack-ack
As always, your present yourself well. :huh Point being, there are aircraft quite at home down low and slow, the P38 is not one of them and for you to ass-ume that I'm not good or do not know what I am doing in a P38 is rather pompous of you, yes?
I guess I always thought the F6F produced more aces than any other aircraft in the US inventory, and that it was repsonsible for more down Japaese aircraft than any other US aircraft as well. I guess I'll have to double check the books.
-
I believe AKAK said the 38 produced more USAAF aces, not US aces. The F6F was the overall high scorer in the Pacific, so you're both right. :)
-
Point being, there are aircraft quite at home down low and slow, the P38 is not one of them
Again more.......................(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5807/imagesbull.jpg)
-
Point being, there are aircraft quite at home down low and slow, the P38 is not one of them...
All these years of feeling quite at home in a low and slow in a 38... Why couldn't you have told me sooner!?
-
All these years of feeling quite at home in a low and slow in a 38... Why couldn't you have told me sooner!?
LOL I knew we were doing something wrong!
-
huh Point being, there are aircraft quite at home down low and slow, the P38 is not one of them and for you to ass-ume that I'm not good or do not know what I am doing in a P38 is rather pompous of you, yes?
The point being if you think what you posted, is it not safe to assume that you're not good or know what you're in the P-38? It isn't pompous, it's just calling a spade a spade when I see one.
Your comments about the P-38 show a very clear lack of knowledge of the plane in real life and what it can do or can't do in game.
I guess I always thought the F6F produced more aces than any other aircraft in the US inventory, and that it was repsonsible for more down Japaese aircraft than any other US aircraft as well. I guess I'll have to double check the books.
If you read my post again, I specified USAAF.
ack-ack
-
The point being if you think what you posted, is it not safe to assume that you're not good or know what you're in the P-38? It isn't pompous, it's just calling a spade a spade when I see one.
Your comments about the P-38 show a very clear lack of knowledge of the plane in real life and what it can do or can't do in game.
If you read my post again, I specified USAAF.
ack-ack
Maybe he is Krustys Brother
-
Again more.......................(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5807/imagesbull.jpg)
Your pride and your love of the P38 get the better if you, keep posting the funny pictures though. :aok
The 38 is outclassed low and slow by a lot of aircraft. Too many things have to be perfect for the 38 to be able to "get away" and "reverse" the fight. I love the P38, dont take my devil's advacate approach the wrong way. ;)
-
The point being if you think what you posted, is it not safe to assume that you're not good or know what you're in the P-38? It isn't pompous, it's just calling a spade a spade when I see one.
Your comments about the P-38 show a very clear lack of knowledge of the plane in real life and what it can do or can't do in game.
If you read my post again, I specified USAAF.
ack-ack
Yeah, it is being pompous. Disagree all you want, and that is really all you are doing, but taking the luxary of labeling me is not yours to have.
I'm well aware of what the P38 did in real life (for me more so vs the Japanese than vs the Germans). I'll be the first to admit that I can not make the P38 dance like some, but that does not mean I dont know the plane and am unaware of what it can and can not do in AH. You are not the all wise grand poo bah you think you are.
-
Let's have a vote for P-38 all wise grand Poo-Bah! :neener:
-
I don't think it's a matter of the 38 not being able to compete low and slow, it just has to compete on different terms. It's a big heavy plane that doesn't roll very well, it's not going to be able to match the more nimble planes in the arena turn for turn. However because of the counter rotating props and stability it has some impressive low speed handling qualities and can maneuver in the vertical quite well even at lower speeds which an experienced pilot can take advantage of.
-
I'd consider myself an average 38 pileit, but i LOVE that plane low and slow. I actually have a hard time flying it "smart" because i love those knife fights.
-
I flew 159 combat missions and over 550 combat hours in P-38 models G, H, J, and L. My first kill was a Betty bomber on my 3rd mission while in a P-38H model. The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield. "Pete" Madison was kind enough to oblige. When we got back to base, I had to crank down the side window and wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land the bird.
http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html
Captain John Alden Tilley
-
P-38 is a great plane, the gunplacing for its armament is second to none, it can laser beam targets if the pilot can aim worth beans, SA is a must of course, while the top and bottom profile is a large target, a p-38 putting itself to your "horizon/flat"" is a very slim target indeed, and most pilots when at 50% fuel or less can make that bird dance in ways that would blow ones mind. Not to mention it has two engines to return home on. Not every p-38 pilot picks from 20k up,but also not every pilot flying low engages targets when 3-4 more are around. Again, good SA.
never forget while this is a game, alot of these "sticks" :joystick: have more "virtual" flight time then most pilots in any war. and have probably crashed more times then all of the pilots in history. "cant back that last one up ;)"
:salute
-
P-38s make baby jebus cry
-
:lol
-
The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.
-
The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.
stop and think how much better the Mossi would have been :O , not that it really needed it but removing the torque would have made it that much faster and more "true" in flight.
-
The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.
The answer is fairly simple. Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them. Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.
-
The answer is fairly simple. Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them. Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.
There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...
-
There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...
I'm serious though. It was far easier to produce Mustangs. In what was a war of attrition, numbers matter. Top production output for a month on the 38 was 402. Top for the 51 was 857. And it took less men to crew a 51 then a 38. I'm a 38 guy, but if I'm running the war and know I can put 450 extra fighters up if I go with 51s, I'm going with 51s.
I think the 38L took the idea as far as it was going to go too
I think the F7F Tigercat is proof the idea didn't go away. But Jets showed up and props were obsolete
-
The answer is fairly simple. Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them. Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.
The exact same thinking gave us the Sherman.
-
I'm serious though. It was far easier to produce Mustangs. In what was a war of attrition, numbers matter. Top production output for a month on the 38 was 402. Top for the 51 was 857. And it took less men to crew a 51 then a 38. I'm a 38 guy, but if I'm running the war and know I can put 450 extra fighters up if I go with 51s, I'm going with 51s.
I think the 38L took the idea as far as it was going to go too
I think the F7F Tigercat is proof the idea didn't go away. But Jets showed up and props were obsolete
No, the P-38K took the idea almost as far as it could go. Eventually, the G series Allison and a four blade Hamilton Standard prop would have maxed it out. The G series Allison might have even made it possible to lose the turbocharger and the attending complexity, given the fact that it could have been fitted with a two speed two stage crank driven centrifugal supercharger. How much Lockheed could have done about compression we'll never know.
Had Consolidated Vultee of Nashville been building B-17's instead of doing a poor job of trying to build P-38's, as opposed to having Lockheed build B-17's on what should have been the other half of P-38 production, the P-38 production could have been doubled, and more updates/upgrades been phased in. There's your 800 P-38's in a month. Almost like being second sourced, as the P-51 actually was.
However, nothing would make up for the cost and complexity of the P-38, or the logistics required, including maintenance. Nothing except rock solid performance, and there, other than absolute top speed, and dive speed, the P-38 shined brightly. The P-38K might have been near dominant in categories other than dive speed, and been close even in top speed in level flight, although it would have been at or near compression speeds. No single plane was at the top in every category, but the P-38L was pretty high in all of them, and the P-38K would have been far superior.
Perhaps the ultimate proof the idea didn't go away would be the P/F-82 Twin Mustang, which was in fact Allison powered.
-
There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...
I think that would possibly have been the P/F-82 Twin Mustang, fully developed, although it never really was. Honestly, the P-38K was already there, and it was there before the P-38J ever actually went into production. And the P-38K still had room for improvement.
Compression was a nasty problem, to be sure. But how many times was it actually a deciding factor in a fight? Sure, it would have been ideal to eliminate compression, but no prop plane ever really avoided it, although some reached higher speeds before it became a problem. It might be that 50 MPH in a dive might let you get away, or it might let you catch a fleeing opponent.
-
The best fighter day I've seen on here yet was where one of our higher alt bases in the middle edge of our territory, had moderately deep hallows on the NW & NE of the base with a tall hill dead north of the rt end of the NE runway, when a couple of the REAL 38 hot shots were fur balling low and slow with us down in those. They were keeping up with us very well. I was impressed 4-5 each of us having a difficult time killing them. Don't remember all of them, but after killing Soulys(sp?) while he was preoccupied, I PM'ed him and he gave me some tips... I flew the lightening the rest of the day and got a few kills each time I upped. Was the first time I flew it with any degree of confidence at all. Most guys who are good sticks, confident without being Smartprettythanges, will help you get the basics. Afterall, they WANT a challenge. They're tired of killing newbs...to some degree. :D :banana:
-
stop and think how much better the Mossi would have been :O , not that it really needed it but removing the torque would have made it that much faster and more "true" in flight.
DH built 1 mossie with counter-rotating props,the preformance gains were deemed not worth the extra effort and logistics involved. However they did get it right in the Hornet,what the mossie should have been from the start.
DH was also aware that the mossie needed a verticle fillet but it would have delayed production lines to unacceptable times. Again DH got it right on the hornet. :aok
:salute
-
Back to why we didn't see more fighters like the P-38.
Cost: I looked it up a while back. In 1943 dollars a P-38 cost about $115,000. A P-47 cost 75k. The P-51 and F4U came in around the mid 60s if memory serves while the Hellcat was somewhere in the mid 50s. I also remember the excessive cost being tied not simply to the extra engine but to the 38s unique turbocharger assemblies.
Production: Even though the 38 did reach full production, it was costly and Lockheed had to move some of their assembly lines outdoors! Given the mediocre performance in the ETO, the USAAF would have ceased production of the P-38 in 1944 were it not for its incredible popularity in the Pacific (2 engines over vast oceans) and some lobbying by 5th Air Force Commander Gen. George Kenney.
Logistics: Pilot training. Pilots of the day were often unfamiliar/intimidated by multiple engines and tricycle landing gear. (I know it sounds funny) Maintenance hours/manpower. Fuel costs. Not only could you buy two P-51s for every 38 but you could essentially FLY two for the same amount of gas.
Overall, my vote for "best bang for the buck" goes to the Hellcat. Pity the F5F and F7F didn't see action, they would have been fun additions to the game.
-
DH built 1 mossie with counter-rotating props,the preformance gains were deemed not worth the extra effort and logistics involved. However they did get it right in the Hornet,what the mossie should have been from the start.
While the Hornet was what we'd like the Mossie to have been, the Hornet project also never would have been kept alive by the British government in 1940. DH barely managed to get the government to agree that a PR aircraft might be made of wood. It was canceled two or three times and only put back on the schedule by the one guy who believed in it. It wasn't until it flew, performing exactly like DH said it would, that suddenly the RAF wanted not only the PR model, not only the proposed bomber models, but even asked for the unproposed, but considered, fighter models.
-
Production: Even though the 38 did reach full production, it was costly and Lockheed had to move some of their assembly lines outdoors! Given the mediocre performance in the ETO, the USAAF would have ceased production of the P-38 in 1944 were it not for its incredible popularity in the Pacific (2 engines over vast oceans) and some lobbying by 5th Air Force Commander Gen. George Kenney.
The P-38 had some assembly done out doors because the 8th AF was going through B-17's so fast that Boeing couldn't keep up, and at least 1/2 of the Lockheed plant where the P-38 was produced was tied up trying to help Boeing keep the 8th AF in B-17's. The 8th AF was stupid enough to try unescorted daylight bombing, and even after the 8th did start using escorts, they didn't have enough escorts to do the job because they sent most of them to the MTO. It was almost 6 months before the 8th AF had anywhere close to enough fighters for an escort, and at that point, the P-38 made up nearly half of the roster of fighters that could go the full distance.
The B-17 should have been second sourced to Consolidated Vultee in Nashville, instead of trying to second source the P-38 there, where they only managed to build 113 P-38's in two years. Consolidated had plenty of experience building large bombers, and Lockheed could have used 100% of their plant capacity to build P-38's, doubling production or better, and dropping the cost. Problems with cost and sourcing of the P-38 lie not with Lockheed and the plane, but rather with the War Production Board.
The ETO was demanding P-38's right up until mid 1944 as fast as Lockheed could supply them, the PTO and General Kenney were second string, compared to Europe. Further, the MTO still wanted P-38's right up until the war in Europe ended. No, the P-38 was not unwanted, it was in demand right up until VJ day, only the 8th wasn't using them after July 44 because the air war in the ETO was mostly done. Even then the P-38 was a better choice than the P-51, because of its ability to survive ground work, Doolittle declined to continue using the P-38 in order to solve logistics issues by cutting his supply line to covering two different fighters instead of three.
-
Looking at 38's and found this footage from Duxford
Any idea what went wrong?
edit (it crashed, dont watch it, looks like possible control failure but Im not sure)
-
Tragic one. Best not to post things like that here as some of our community are in the same circles as air show pilots. Not having a pop at you, just a case of considering the community we are in.
S!
-
Looking at 38's and found this footage from Duxford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHB-9V-VORU
Any idea what went wrong?
What BatfinkV said. Poor taste to post that one. A great pilot died.
-
We actually have friends (Kraits) who used to fly AH and AW who were there.
It was not a control failure. It was a tragic accident that took the life of a great man and destroyed a piece of history.
Nuff said.
-
Read Corky Meyer:
At the Joint Army/Navy Fighter Conference on October 16, 1944, I tested the P-38L dive-recovery flap well in excess of its 0.65 Mach-number limit. Upon actuation, they instantly provided a smooth, 4G recovery without pilot effort. Immediately after I evaluated these "jewels," they were installed on all Grumman 17817-1 Bearcat fighters.
No pilot effort---the nose pitched up from deployment of the dive recovery flaps--around 10-20degrees pitch up.
Pilots also experimented trying to turn tighter using both combat manuerving flap (fowler) &
dive recovery flap to slightly get the nose around quicker. The majority of pilots that experimented utilizing both set of flaps thought it gave a little extra in nose pitch but the combination was draggy and bleed energy.
But then again if you are doing the "Clover Leaf Manuever" speed wouldn't matter as you were heavily stall turning to gain an advantage.
This issue has been raised before. Others insist that deployment of dive recovery flaps have no noticable effect on
pitch and no brakeing effect. As far as im concerned the above description proves beyond any doubt the p38l
flight model is wrong.
a
-
-
Read Corky Meyer:
At the Joint Army/Navy Fighter Conference on October 16, 1944, I tested the P-38L dive-recovery flap well in excess of its 0.65 Mach-number limit. Upon actuation, they instantly provided a smooth, 4G recovery without pilot effort. Immediately after I evaluated these "jewels," they were installed on all Grumman 17817-1 Bearcat fighters.
No pilot effort---the nose pitched up from deployment of the dive recovery flaps--around 10-20degrees pitch up.
Pilots also experimented trying to turn tighter using both combat manuerving flap (fowler) &
dive recovery flap to slightly get the nose around quicker. The majority of pilots that experimented utilizing both set of flaps thought it gave a little extra in nose pitch but the combination was draggy and bleed energy.
But then again if you are doing the "Clover Leaf Manuever" speed wouldn't matter as you were heavily stall turning to gain an advantage.
This issue has been raised before. Others insist that deployment of dive recovery flaps have no noticable effect on
pitch and no brakeing effect. As far as im concerned the above description proves beyond any doubt the p38l
flight model is wrong.
That is only one example. A worthy example, no doubt. I'd be willing to bet that HTC has files and files of documentation on flight characteristics written by pilots on most of their aircraft, US and UK in particular.
-
The AH model, with regard to dive characteristics and the dive flaps, does not quite match Corky's experience, nor does it match Tony Levier's, or even Ben Kelsey's. It's not horrible, but it is off some. Also, not too long ago, WideWing had a real P-38 pilot fly the AH P-38, and his opinion was that the AH P-38 had a serious lack of elevator authority, and a few minor issues. All in all, the AH model is not bad at all, but like anything else made by humans, it is not perfect, either.
-
This issue has been raised before. Others insist that deployment of dive recovery flaps have no noticable effect on
pitch and no brakeing effect. As far as im concerned the above description proves beyond any doubt the p38l
flight model is wrong.
And those people would be incorrect. The dive flaps do work on the P-38L and no, there will be no "braking effect" when deploying the dive flaps because the dive flaps didn't work that way. The problem is that most deploy the dive flaps too late to be of any use, which leads them to believe the dive flaps aren't modeled correctly.
ack-ack
-
Then what those dive flaps do? Im just curious.
-
They are dive flaps and not dive brakes. They do not appreciably slow the aircraft. Maybe I need to try it again, but in a dive from 20K, in AH, and in AH II, they do not create a hands free 4G pullout. They never have, in my experience. Buffeting should begin just before .64 MACH, and provided the dive flaps are extended by .67 MACH, the buffeting should ameliorate or at least lessen, and the plane should start to recover once you get in thicker air. In fact, most pilots who knew what they were doing said if you stuck with the plane and flew it instead of panicking said that once it got into thicker air, you could pull out without the flaps. The dive flaps themselves do not actually affect the shock wave of compression, nor how or where it forms. What they do is alter the center of lift on the outer wing, so that the plane can regain a nose up attitude. Note that the dive flaps are on the outboard wings, but the thick wing section on a P-38, where compression happens, is the center wing, between the fuselage booms and the center nacelle. THAT is where compression occurs, as stated later in this post.
Witness Robin Olds' story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY) of shooting down two Me 109's and then diving to attack two on the tail of a P-51 and entering a severe compression dive. He pulled out (it blew out a window, which was common, the MACH shock wave that causes compression forms where the wing fillet and the cockpit nacelle join at the window) leveled off, and proceeded to shoot down another M3 109 that attacked him at treetop level. Notice there is no mention of dive flaps.
Note, Dogfights is wrong about several things here, including the "approaches the speed of sound" (the P-38 would not approach the speed of sound, it went into compression at around 490 MPH), and the visual of compression and what happens during compression, it does not cause elevator flutter or lock the control surfaces, it renders them ineffective because it shifts the center of lift, forcing the nose down. Now, Robin Olds was wrong, too, he thought pulling G's blew out his window, but the cause was compression and the shockwave. If you read Warren Bodie's "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" you'll find that the radius of the center wing fillet where it joins the center nacelle, and the fit up around the roll up window on the side of the cockpit, are both the most critical components in how and when compression effects the P-38. In fact, had that radius been increased and extended again, and the cockpit design altered slightly, it might have improved the compression issue further, and raised the threshold again.
Another thing I found seriously wrong with the P-38, although it is a somewhat minor flaw, is that the wheel brakes just plain suck. The proper run up procedure has the pilot hold the plane at the end of the runway and build 54" of boost, while the plane remains still. This was to prevent the problem of engines stalling or cutting out as the throttles were advanced no take off. I've seen it done, repeatedly, and all of the current pilots flying restored P-38's that I've seen practice this religiously. I watched Steve Hinton do this to Glacier Girl dozens of times, the plane sits still and shudders while the engines howl, then the brakes are released and it rockets down the runway.
-
Gentleman, the dive recovery flaps will not work if you have auto-trim on... They work as advertised if you trim manually. Auto trim will counter the pitch-up effect. Go offline and test it. Take off or auto-spawn from a 30k field. Neutralize elevator trim. split-s into a dive and immediately deploy the dive recovery flaps. Now, go hands-off. The P-38 will pitch up and recover with no input from you...
-
Gentleman, the dive recovery flaps will not work if you have auto-trim on... They work as advertised if you trim manually. Auto trim will counter the pitch-up effect. Go offline and test it. Take off or auto-spawn from a 30k field. Neutralize elevator trim. split-s into a dive and immediately deploy the dive recovery flaps. Now, go hands-off. The P-38 will pitch up and recover with no input from you...
Interesting. The P-38 is the one plane I never used auto trim on. I'll give it another try soon. Thanks.
-
thanks <S>
Widewing: im flying with a mouse so its not as easy to find the center position... you mean, like a tempest?
-
Interesting. The P-38 is the one plane I never used auto trim on. I'll give it another try soon. Thanks.
I just went offline to verify what I had written above.... The P-38 didn't change pitch at all. It required a tiny bit if nose up trim to get the pull out started (hands-off). I remember that it used to work... So what changed?
-
Alrighty.... I tested both the P-38J and the P-38L offline to compare what, if anything, the dive recovery flaps do. Again, manual trim, neutral elevator trim at beginning of the dive.
I began a dive from 28k, reducing power to about 50% after the onset of buffeting (which begins at Mach 0.64, a bit low IMHO).
Once I deploy the dive recovery flaps, I see that I have reasonable elevator authority at Mach 0.73 on the L model. However, the J model has absolutely none at Mach 0.73. Adding a bit of trim to the L allows for a quicker rotation (pitch-up). On the J model, you must add a lot of trim, but must still wait until it descends much lower for the trim to get a bite.
So, the P-38L's dive recovery flaps provide much more elevator authority at high Mach than the P-38J without them. Just remember that you must be in manual trim or they do nothing whatsoever.
-
Widewing,
Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the dive recovery flaps on the J and L behave exactly the same?
-
When I see a -38 I first lick my lips, all the while wondering if they are with the 80th. The Headhunters as a unit have come to grips with the -38. There are some incredible -38 sticks to include my squadie 8Spade. He will embarrass most pilots. Also, Soulyss. You will think they are cheating. If you want to learn the -38 look those two up. A few others will be mentioned but learn from the best.
Boo
-
"P-38 details: data and information pertinent to virtual modeling"
by David C. Copley, last updated 30 May 2009
google this site.
-
Widewing,
Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the dive recovery flaps on the J and L behave exactly the same?
The J doesn't have them....
-
The J doesn't have them....
Ah. I was unaware of that. I thought they were pretty much the same plane other than the boosted ailerons on the L.
I make no pretenses of being knowledgeable about P-38.
-
Ah. I was unaware of that. I thought they were pretty much the same plane other than the boosted ailerons on the L.
I make no pretenses of being knowledgeable about P-38.
Our P-38J is probably a P-38J-15-Lo, it could be a P-38J-5-Lo, or even a P-38J-20-Lo, Pyro would have to give us the exact model, he may have already somewhere. The first P-38J with dive flaps from the factory was the P-38J-25-Lo, which for AH purposes is considered equivalent to the P-38L-5-Lo we have, because AH II does not model the Allison Lockheed power settings for the -30 Allison in the P-38L, which would be 64" of manifold pressure, and 3200 RPM.
-
Widewing,
Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the dive recovery flaps on the J and L behave exactly the same?
The J doesn't have power assisted controls either for what it's worth. The L has all the bells and whistles. In the end the L got there for the most after the air to air war for the 38 was over. In the PTO, MTO and ETO the 38s spent their time ground pounding and lacking air to air targets from October 44 on when the Ls showed up.
-
The J doesn't have power assisted controls either for what it's worth. The L has all the bells and whistles. In the end the L got there for the most after the air to air war for the 38 was over. In the PTO, MTO and ETO the 38s spent their time ground pounding and lacking air to air targets from October 44 on when the Ls showed up.
All the more reason to add the 38-H as its the most common Bird in combat :)
-
All the more reason to add the 38-H as its the most common Bird in combat :)
Actually the G was, but whose counting :)
-
Actually the G was, but whose counting :)
Shhhh you are salting my game :lol
-
Ah. I was unaware of that. I thought they were pretty much the same plane other than the boosted ailerons on the L.
I make no pretenses of being knowledgeable about P-38.
At least the J model we have doesn't have the boosted ailerons or dive flaps. Late model Js, starting with the P-38J-25-L0, did receive the boosted aileron and dive flap upgrade.
ack-ack
-
Actually the G was, but whose counting :)
Really? Was that in the Pacific, and the Mediterranean?
I thought the 20th and 55th started with the H model in October of 1943.
-
Really? Was that in the Pacific, and the Mediterranean?
I thought the 20th and 55th started with the H model in October of 1943.
The H's were the first in the ETO, but were quickly replaced by the Js.
In the MTO they got the ETO hand me down Hs. They were still flying G models well into 44 in the MTO. The 82nd FG had a 38F named "Sad Sack" that was in combat for 17 months, flew 184 missions and had 16 planes to it's credit, finally being retired at the end of May 44 after taking a flak hit to the nose. About 1100 G models built with about 600 Hs, 600 Fs. In terms of air combat in the Pacific, it really was prime time in 43. They certainly were still shooting stuff in 44 but not at the rate they were claiming in 43. This is the same in the MTO.
I suppose in were talking about ground attack too, it might be closer, but the air to air stuff was the early birds and the G had the largest production run
-
The J doesn't have them....
Corey - IIRC the J-25 and above had them but if you are referring to AH version I have no clue
-
Corey - IIRC the J-25 and above had them but if you are referring to AH version I have no clue
The AH J doesn't. They were retrofitted to some J-15s too I believe and standard with the J-25 on. I believe the AH 38J is a J-10
-
The AH J doesn't. They were retrofitted to some J-15s too I believe and standard with the J-25 on. I believe the AH 38J is a J-10
I believe you are correct - the ill fated loss (ship?) had kits for service Centers at 8th AF designated for -10 and above and the -25 was first production block change with the flaps.
-
I believe you are correct - the ill fated loss (ship?) had kits for service Centers at 8th AF designated for -10 and above and the -25 was first production block change with the flaps.
IIRC it was a transport aircraft bringing the refit kits to England; the plane was shot down by an RAF Spitfire. At least I think I read that somewhere.
-
Corky is the most dangerous 38 pilot in the game............to trees, shrubs, fences, barns, airfield structures, and himself.
:angel:
-
IIRC it was a transport aircraft bringing the refit kits to England; the plane was shot down by an RAF Spitfire. At least I think I read that somewhere.
good enough for me..
-
C-54 carrying cargo, including 200 Dive Recovery Flap kits was shot down by a Spitfire, mistaking it for a FW 200. You can't fix stupid.
-
If you need to learn how to turn in a P38, there are a few pilots that might learn you.
All you need is to ask.
Ask Silat or Twintail. I hate the P38 when Silat or Twintail are flying them. :joystick: :lol
They are good P38 pilots. <S> :salute
The pilot are the brain in the plane. <S>
-
Ok ok, early Luft planes all te way to the g14 38's are very outclassed. Late war 109's and 190's will have a helluva time turning with a deascent 38j/L.
190a5 and turn with a p47, a 38 outturns a jug at slow speeds. Therfore a 190 can't out turn a 38, even the a5 (the best turning 190)
At 400mph+ a 190 can pretty much do everything better than a 38.
I cant remember how many 38's planted it, trying to get out of a dive coming after me.
-
At 400mph+ a 190 can pretty much do everything better than a 38.
I cant remember how many 38's planted it, trying to get out of a dive coming after me.
It only has a slightly faster roll rate at that speed and cannot turn as well at that speed with a P-38, especially a P-38L which can deploy its dive flaps to aid in a high speed turn.
As for a P-38 augering in trying to follow you in a dive, well, that just points to the a mistake or inexperience on the part of the P-38 driver. Those that are experienced flying the P-38 can safely dive the Lightning up to 500mph IAS and still retain the ability to maneuver, albeit sluggishly but still able to control the plane.
ack-ack
-
It only has a slightly faster roll rate at that speed and cannot turn as well at that speed with a P-38, especially a P-38L which can deploy its dive flaps to aid in a high speed turn.
As for a P-38 augering in trying to follow you in a dive, well, that just points to the a mistake or inexperience on the part of the P-38 driver. Those that are experienced flying the P-38 can safely dive the Lightning up to 500mph IAS and still retain the ability to maneuver, albeit sluggishly but still able to control the plane.
ack-ack
If you look at the NACA roll data for the FW 190A, The P-38L should easily out-roll any 190 at high speed. The NACA data shows that the 190's roll rate degrades quickly above 300 mph.
-
If you look at the NACA roll data for the FW 190A, The P-38L should easily out-roll any 190 at high speed. The NACA data shows that the 190's roll rate degrades quickly above 300 mph.
It does within Aces High as well, at high speed the P38L can roll faster than any 190 or P47. That roll rate, in my opinion, makes stall fighting in the L much more difficult, particularly when snap-rolling at low speed. Historically, P38 drivers transitioning to the L from the G/H/J had the same complaints.
Suffice to say, I'd rather 1v1 in a J but against a large number of bandits the L is much better at higher speeds, particularly when BnZing.
-
cannot turn as well at that speed with a P-38, especially a P-38L which can deploy its dive flaps to aid in a high speed turn.
People in this game have a habit of claiming that "x" plane turns better at high speed. And in every case it is nonsense, and a pet peeve of mine.
An aircraft's turn performance above corner speed is limited by G tolerance. The only other limitation that may come into play is if heavy controls disallow the pilot from pulling as many Gs as he can stand. And every "pilot" in the AHII skies is limited to the exact same 6 Gs. 400mph IAS is well above corner speed for both the 38 and 190.
Aircraft types DO NOT MATTER. If two planes are going the same speed and pulling the same number of Gs (let us say the 6 Gs that we are limited to in AHII), then their turn rates and radii are EXACTLY the same, not better or worse. This is an immutable law of physics. Furthermore, any speed in excess of corner velocity decreases turn rate and increases turn radius, so the initial advantage in any turning starting out at 400mph or so IAS would go to the pilot who decelerates his plane more quickly to corner velocity.
-
^^^ that
plus those rides top speed is well under 400mph (IAS). How long can you fly over 400, how many moves can you do before you burn your speed?
400+mph hadling only comes to play in a BnZ situation. In an even 1v1 or many vs many, those charachteristics play a minor role.
-
Aircraft types DO NOT MATTER. If two planes are going the same speed and pulling the same number of Gs (let us say the 6 Gs that we are limited to in AHII), then their turn rates and radii are EXACTLY the same, not better or worse. This is an immutable law of physics. Furthermore, any speed in excess of corner velocity decreases turn rate and increases turn radius, so the initial advantage in any turning starting out at 400mph or so IAS would go to the pilot who decelerates his plane more quickly to corner velocity.
But the Vn will not be the same if the CLmax and W/S are different.. having said that most of the a/c you model here would have a reasonably close Vn to each other as the CLmax and W/S are not hugely different as long as you stipulate the same 6 G allowable..
But if you take say a P-51H and a P-51D at same mission loading, the 51H should have a higher Vn - because the limit load for the p-51H, while at 7.3 Gs (IIRC) for the design load out internal fuel versus the 51D (at 8G for 8,000 GW) was 6.4 at 10000 GW for same profile..
-
BnZ the turn rates are only the same for that instant when they have the same speed and G load. Realistically that parity is going to change pretty quickly and one of two dissimilar aircraft will likely show better overall high speed turn performance.