Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Guppy35 on September 07, 2011, 01:45:58 AM
-
From the recently acquired 364th FG history. They flew 38s then 51s in the ETO with the 8th AF. The pilot's name is Ken Nicholson. he's referring to the 38J-25 or 38L with the power assisted controls. Thought his comment regarding out rolling 190s was interesting.
"The P-38 was one of the worlds fastest diving airplanes. Unfortunately it was Hell to pull out. One of those experiences was enough. By using servo tabs on the ailerons and rudders though it became one of the world's fastest rollers. I've started after a FW190 in a roll and waited for him to finish The P51s were easier to fly, not nearly as maneuverable as my P-38 and 15 mph slower, but they surely did alright above 15,000 feet. I wound up with two and a share, but it seems to be a unique category because some of the aces introduce me as one of their 'half-aced' friends"
-
Well, the NACA868 report states that the roll rate of fw190 starts to fall above 250mph and even a P-51 would outroll it above 350mph (with 50lbs max force on the stick). With boosted ailerons the forces needed in high speed dives would be much smaller and the roll rate determined by aerodynamic qualities, not how strong pilot there happens to be in the cpit.
-C+
-
... The P51s were easier to fly, not nearly as maneuverable as my P-38 and 15 mph slower...
What version of the 51 was actually slower than the 38?
-
P38 > than everything else.
-
From the recently acquired 364th FG history. They flew 38s then 51s in the ETO with the 8th AF. The pilot's name is Ken Nicholson. he's referring to the 38J-25 or 38L with the power assisted controls. Thought his comment regarding out rolling 190s was interesting.
"The P-38 was one of the worlds fastest diving airplanes. Unfortunately it was Hell to pull out. One of those experiences was enough. By using servo tabs on the ailerons and rudders though it became one of the world's fastest rollers. I've started after a FW190 in a roll and waited for him to finish The P51s were easier to fly, not nearly as maneuverable as my P-38 and 15 mph slower, but they surely did alright above 15,000 feet. I wound up with two and a share, but it seems to be a unique category because some of the aces introduce me as one of their 'half-aced' friends"
Nowhere in this did he state he rolled with the 190.
-
What version of the 51 was actually slower than the 38?
The XP-51 through the A-36. The only way a P-38 could fly faster than a P-51B through H was with flaps extended for the 51. The 51B-H had 2/3 the Cd0 as the 38, entered drag rise at about .05 M higher, and was simply a LOT faster as the model went from P-51D to P-51H purely because of drag.
The 38 hit a brick wall at 425-430 no matter how much power they strapped on.
-
Well, the NACA868 report states that the roll rate of fw190 starts to fall above 250mph and even a P-51 would outroll it above 350mph (with 50lbs max force on the stick). With boosted ailerons the forces needed in high speed dives would be much smaller and the roll rate determined by aerodynamic qualities, not how strong pilot there happens to be in the cpit.
-C+
Even the d9?
-
Nowhere in this did he state he rolled with the 190.
Per the NACA chart, the P-38 will roll faster than the Fw190 at higher speeds.
Even the d9?
I am unaware of any improvements in roll rate for the Fw190D-9. Were there any?
-
On phone right now cannot look it up 95% sure 190 has got electrically boosted control surfaces
-
On phone right now cannot look it up 95% sure 190 has got electrically boosted control surfaces
This what I thought the d9 had... I may be wrong though
-
Might be flaps ? :headscratch:
-
What version of the 51 was actually slower than the 38?
I think the pilot was referring that the P38 was 15mph slower than the P51.
-
On phone right now cannot look it up 95% sure 190 has got electrically boosted control surfaces
I have never heard of anything with boosted control surfaces, other than the P-38, in WWII. I wouldn't be shocked if a bomber like the B-29 had them as I don't read as much about bombers, but I would have to see primary source documentation supporting the claim for a fighter.
-
Nowhere in this did he state he rolled with the 190.
The sentence previous was in reference to the 38 rolling ability. His follow up sentence was in reference to following a 190 in a roll and finishing it before the 190.
-
The XP-51 through the A-36. The only way a P-38 could fly faster than a P-51B through H was with flaps extended for the 51. The 51B-H had 2/3 the Cd0 as the 38, entered drag rise at about .05 M higher, and was simply a LOT faster as the model went from P-51D to P-51H purely because of drag.
The 38 hit a brick wall at 425-430 no matter how much power they strapped on.
Remember the Luftwaffe aces shot down 38s faster then Lockheed could build them. Wasn't that Heinrich Bartels who shot down 7 of the 19 38s that went down over Greece on November 15th and 17th of 43? ;)
I do believe that the pilot I quoted was referring to down low in the 38 in reference to the 51 speed. As he'd flown 51Ds and 38s with the 364th, he was referring to his own experience in them.
-
Remember the Luftwaffe aces shot down 38s faster then Lockheed could build them. Wasn't that Heinrich Bartels who shot down 7 of the 19 38s that went down over Greece on November 15th and 17th of 43? ;)
I do believe that the pilot I quoted was referring to down low in the 38 in reference to the 51 speed. As he'd flown 51Ds and 38s with the 364th, he was referring to his own experience in them.
The 38 was believed easy meat by LW pilots that encountered them in the ETO at high altitude in 1943/early 1944 but, for example Steinhoff, who fought them in MTO expressed a serious counter opinion. Nobody thought a P-38 was easy meat from late J model through L. The dive flaps and boosted ailerons made it a very agile fighter in both vertical and horizontal.
-
I have never heard of anything with boosted control surfaces, other than the P-38, in WWII. I wouldn't be shocked if a bomber like the B-29 had them as I don't read as much about bombers, but I would have to see primary source documentation supporting the claim for a fighter.
Still hunting down the page I was lookingn at about the 190 I do think it was article about a crashed FW that had been found in Russia or something that mentioned it?? Grrr the only thing I can find is forum posts were some say it is electrically boosted and others say it uses control rods?
Interestingly you can add the Tempest to the list of planes that boosted ailerons says here they used a spring.
"The ailerons were fitted with spring loaded tabs which lightened the aerodynamic loads, making them easier for the pilot to use and dramatically improving the roll rate above 250 mph (402 km/h)"
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Tempest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Tempest)
This on the 190 is interesting and might explain its excellant high speed handling in game...
"Instead of the customary cables and pulleys used on most aircraft, which tended to stretch, resulting in 'give' and 'play' that made the controls less crisp and responsive, the design team used rigid pushrods to actuate the control surfaces. Another innovation was making the controls as light as possible. The maximum resistance of the ailerons was limited to eight pounds, as the average man's wrist could not exert a greater force."
But how did they go about this??
-
illusions...the fastest rolling 190's are the A series :P
-
Long Live the 38! :lol
-
hmmm, rolling faster than a 190...
The real question is did anyone vomit?
-
hmmm, rolling faster than a 190...
The real question is did anyone vomit?
Not sure about vomit, but I bet the 190 pilot lost some bodily fluids watching the 38 roll :D
-
Anyone come up with anything on the 8 pounds of stick pressure, or how that would be accomplished? I'd assume it would have something to do with how the stick was set up regards leverage??
-
Anyone come up with anything on the 8 pounds of stick pressure, or how that would be accomplished? I'd assume it would have something to do with how the stick was set up regards leverage??
That 8 pounds is probably "system drag" and is eliminated by well engineered control systems. Push/pull rods, bearings where needed, etc. With aerodynamic loading you'll need more than 8 pounds even on a Cessna.
-
Not sure about vomit, but I bet the 190 pilot lost some bodily fluids watching the 38 roll :D
Doesn't an F-16 roll about three times as fast as an Fw190?
-
Yes, no, maybe, Dont understand your point.
-
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/P-38rollchart.jpg)
-
He could have been a better more experienced pilot and out flew the 190 pilot.
-
Nowhere in this did he state he rolled with the 190.
you need to re read it in context...
-
you need to re read it in context...
well hello Stranger
TC
-
The 38 was believed easy meat by LW pilots that encountered them in the ETO at high altitude in 1943/early 1944 but, for example Steinhoff, who fought them in MTO expressed a serious counter opinion. Nobody thought a P-38 was easy meat from late J model through L. The dive flaps and boosted ailerons made it a very agile fighter in both vertical and horizontal.
Actually the P-38 wasn't "easy meat" for LW, even in late 1943/ early 1944. Many LW aces considered the fork-tailed devil a serious adversary. High casualty rate for the P-38H and early J was mostly due to the unreliable Allison engines which were really not suitable for the ETO climate and high altitude. Many P-38s fell victim to failed Allison engines and thus some were picked off flying on one engine by the LW. Just read the 20th and 55th FG group histories to find out more about this.
Also one should consider that the LW core pilot quality hadnt deteriorated by late 1943 (atleast not substantially) as it had when the Mustang equipped 8th AAF started to really amass victories on the rookies of Luftwaffe. Had a more reliable version of the P-38 been available in numbers from summer 1944 to the end war, im pretty sure it would've racked up some serious number of victories on the LW. Also the few units that did use the P-38 in ETO up to fall 1944 were mostly ordered to air-to-ground missions and loco busting in generally, a hazardous job with not much of chances to rack up air-to-air victories and this obviously affected the kill ratios of such units in a bad way.
-
Many LW aces considered the fork-tailed devil a serious adversary.
You have any examples in mind?
- oldman
-
You have any examples in mind?
- oldman
Felt like picking just this one sentence from the context?
Well in addition to Macki Steinhoff's forementioned respectful comments, Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."
also: "On 3 Nov. 1943 P-38s escorted bombers to Wilhemshaven. While the German
fighters were, as a result of the efforts of the P-38 drivers, only able to
shoot down three bombers, German fighter losses were sufficiently heavy, II/JGS
suffering particularly badly (curiously, the 55FG pilots only claimed three
e/a destroyed), that Gen. Galland held a special meeting with I Jagdkorps'
division commanders the next day. One of the key decisions made at this
meeting was to have the "wild sow" single-engine night fighter force
transferred to day jobs to counter the P-38s. (Here we have what could be
called "escort-once-removed"--P-38s were, in a way, performing "escort duties"
for RAF's Bomber Command--drawing fighters away from them.) And it was
acknowledged that the era of the twin-engined interceptor as an significant
factor, was ended.
On Nov. 13, 45 P-38 escorted bombers to Bremen. Only two bombers were lost to
fighter interception. Throughout Nov and Dec, although the 8AF was sending
double the no. of bombers against German targets it had in the fall, losses
were never more than about 5 percent of the attacking force, and were often
only a mere handful--on the Dec. 13, 1943 mission against Hamburg, for
example, out of a force of 648 bombers, only 5 were lost. Many German fighter
formations approached the bombers on this day, but when they saw the fighter
escorts, refused to engage.
At the end of Dec. Galland and the staff of Jagdkorp I admitted that their
tactics against escorted bomber formations had failed."
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html (http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html)
Looks like General Galland too had to take the P-38 seriously.