Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Randy1 on April 30, 2014, 04:52:04 PM
-
Is the L modeled in AH an early version of the L having the lower rated HP engines like the J?
I would have thought the L modeled would have been a later production model with the higher rated engines.
I am a bit confused still on the same performance numbers we see in the J and L.
-
The identical performance figures suggest that it's the same engine in the J and L.
-
The identical performance figures suggest that it's the same engine in the J and L.
The P-38J was fitted with V-1710 F-17 engines, and the P-38L was fitted with the V-1710 F-30.
The F-17 engine was rated by Allison at 1,600 hp in WEP. The F-30 engine was rated by Allison at 1,725 hp in WEP. The USAAF, in the interest of reliability, de-rated the F-30 to 1,600 hp. Aces High models the de-rated F-30 in the P-38L.
-
Thanks Widewing I couldn't remember the details.
-
The P-38J was fitted with V-1710 F-17 engines, and the P-38L was fitted with the V-1710 F-30.
The F-17 engine was rated by Allison at 1,600 hp in WEP. The F-30 engine was rated by Allison at 1,725 hp in WEP. The USAAF, in the interest of reliability, de-rated the F-30 to 1,600 hp. Aces High models the de-rated F-30 in the P-38L.
I thought I had read the USAAF ended up splitting the difference between the factory rating on the F-17 and the F-30.
-
I found this thread back in 2006. The debate was a good one. Although the conscientious is the P38L was widely not derated or full derated in field there is no known offical documentation to pin this down. What a shame.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,173657.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,173657.0.html)
-
There are many accounts of mechanics trusting pilots to handle more than the rated power. In AH we are limited to the official ratings.
-
There are many accounts of mechanics trusting pilots to handle more than the rated power. In AH we are limited to the official ratings.
What we are missing is a USAF letter authorizing the mods. I have read that the official setting was halfway between the Allison setting of the J setting but there is no document. Its out there somewhere hopefully.
The L is castrated and it shouldn't be.
-
I wouldn't worry about documentation. We match the pilot manual. A letter about a field mod won't change that.
-
The best I can tell is the derating got tied up with the fuel grade change with no testing done to certify the L's new engines to 150 octane therefore falling back to the J's Manifold pressure.
Could be too, the P51's cost both intial and operating so undercut the cost of the 38s, the money and time for testing just wasn't there for the 38.
Now the next question is why is the eny so low for the L?
-
Because it carry same bomb load as medium bomber, and after drop turn into an very effective fighter. All other 38 you can easily outdive, but not the L.
You can try to figure out why the Mossie fighter that can carry 4 bombs and have 4 Hispanos and a couple of garden-party-shooters (.303), can turn and dogfight many contemporary planes, have a ENY of 30 though.
-
You can try to figure out why the Mossie fighter that can carry 4 bombs and have 4 Hispanos and a couple of garden-party-shooters (.303), can turn and dogfight many contemporary planes, have a ENY of 30 though.
Low usage so far as I an tell. The ENY 30 of the Mossie VI was one of the ENY values I said were questionable just prior to the most recent ENY changes. Every other aircraft I mentioned had its ENY changed to pretty much what I thought it should be, just not the Mossie VI, it stayed at 30.
-
Because it carry same bomb load as medium bomber, and after drop turn into an very effective fighter. All other 38 you can easily outdive, but not the L.
You make a good point Save.
But I can counter with the P-47D40(ENY20) can carry the same load-out and is in its element, just as good of a fighter as the P38L.
There is a fair amount of agreement among the top P-38 drivers that in an all things equal fight the J would win over the L. That would suggest to me the P38L is too low.
Just raising the ENY from 12 to 15 seem to be a touch better since it would avoid just about all ENY restrictions that I have encountered.
If HTC would give the full Allison rating to the L then the 12 would be fine.
HTC isn't wrong on the L from as FLS says per the manual but the P38L was like the pictures of the youngest child in a family. The older child has lots of pictures but the youngest child will have few. The L just doesn't have the documentation of the earlier p-38s.
The leg I am standing on is not too strong. I will admit that.
-
There is a fair amount of agreement among the top P-38 drivers that in an all things equal fight the J would win over the L. That would suggest to me the P38L is too low.
Which 'top P-38 drivers' have claimed that? In an equal fight, it's a wash and whoever makes the first mistake is going to lose.
ack-ack
-
I think the P-38L is a markedly better fighter in AH than is the P-47D-40. It also gets its ordnance to the target faster by a significant margin.
-
I think the P-38L is a markedly better fighter in AH than is the P-47D-40. It also gets its ordnance to the target faster by a significant margin.
The massive firepower of the 47 is a great equalizer.
Getting the ords there, I agree, the P38L sure climbs well when loaded. For this tour, I use the P-47 as a fighter and use the P-38L for attack missions.
On the the P47-D, using 50% fuel with a center drop tank, you can be respectable in getting the same ords there as the L but that is with WEP. Drop the tank after climb out and your in pretty good shape.
-
Which 'top P-38 drivers' have claimed that? In an equal fight, it's a wash and whoever makes the first mistake is going to lose.
ack-ack
I have to say, I'd expect the J to win
-
I have to say, I'd expect the J to win
I don't see why. If anything, the L has the advantage at high speeds due to the better roll rate from the boosted ailerons and also the advantage in the dive from the dive flaps. Equal pilots, it's a wash between the J and the L with the determining factor being who made the mistake first.
ack-ack
-
Doesn't the L have a higher weight due to those added pieces of equipment?
-
Doesn't the L have a higher weight due to those added pieces of equipment?
Nothing that prohibits from having the same turn rate/radius in-game of the of the J.
ack-ack
-
That surprises me, because I've found the J the better fighter the times I've flown it.
-
I find the L to be the best of the 3 P-38s we have in game even though I tend to fly the J exclusively.
ack-ack
-
The massive firepower of the 47 is a great equalizer.
Erm, P-38's firepower is quite competitive. Seven .50s worth of firepower as long as the cannon ammo lasts, and all centerline so better concentration.
-
I've been flying the P38L for attack missions as of late. Nice plane for sure. It has a great advantage in that after you drop ordnance you can climb out fairly well and fly CAP. Those nose cannons are nice too! Since I don't fly to many cannon planes it really impresses that you can knock another plane out of the sky so fast. The speed isn't so bad either. Better than I thought after shooting down so many in an f4U-1a. I guess the mindset you must have in a P38L is if someone is over you, you best get ready for the fight.
Speaking of over you, I've gotten quite a few kills in the 38 when the enemy is languishing higher simply by just pointing the nose upward. That's way better than the F4U-1a. The downside is diving. It will compress, there's things you can do though to avoid the dreaded compression.
One last cool thing is you can helicopter that bad boy in for a landing. Heck it should be perked for it's landing ability alone.
-
Erm, P-38's firepower is quite competitive. Seven .50s worth of firepower as long as the cannon ammo lasts, and all centerline so better concentration.
The eight 50s give a really good spray pattern where as the 38 is more of a centralize, laser like stream. If your crack shot then as you noted the difference is lessened. A crack shot I am not. :)
-
Spraying with MGs just results in assists. I've definitely noticed my Mossie is able to absorb tremendous punishment from American fighters that are hitting me with sprayed .50s.
-
Spraying with MGs just results in assists. I've definitely noticed my Mossie is able to absorb tremendous punishment from American fighters that are hitting me with sprayed .50s.
Limitations of a damage model where turning a plane into Swiss cheese isn't particularly likely to do anything. I imagine 8 .303 packages suffer even worse relative their abilities in RL.
-
The eight 50s give a really good spray pattern where as the 38 is more of a centralize, laser like stream. If your crack shot then as you noted the difference is lessened. A crack shot I am not. :)
I'd rather have concentrated fire power than spraying my rounds all over the place, you tend to kill more stuff that way.
ack-ack
-
Limitations of a damage model where turning a plane into Swiss cheese isn't particularly likely to do anything. I imagine 8 .303 packages suffer even worse relative their abilities in RL.
I think you're significantly overestimating the effectiveness of spraying .50 rounds like that. I see a lot of bias of that kind in favor of the .50 on this forum. Could one of the rounds severe a control cable in the wing? Sure, but unless you hit me with a lot more rounds than we're talking about it is pretty unlikely. By the time you've sprayed and prayed your .50s over my Mossie to the point that you'd have a 50/50 chance of doing so I'd have been long since dead to structural failure in the AH damage model.
-
I think you're significantly overestimating the effectiveness of spraying .50 rounds like that. I see a lot of bias of that kind in favor of the .50 on this forum. Could one of the rounds severe a control cable in the wing? Sure, but unless you hit me with a lot more rounds than we're talking about it is pretty unlikely. By the time you've sprayed and prayed your .50s over my Mossie to the point that you'd have a 50/50 chance of doing so I'd have been long since dead to structural failure in the AH damage model.
Ah, but there are things besides control cables to be hit. And the aerodynamic and structural effects of having your airplane Swiss-cheesed. Lots of things that can ruin a fighter airplane for the fight or force it down that don't involve a wing falling off. Taken together, it begins to add up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daTkqBae3gA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daTkqBae3gA)
-
Ah, but there are things besides control cables to be hit. And the aerodynamic and structural effects of having your airplane Swiss-cheesed. Lots of things that can ruin a fighter airplane for the fight or force it down that don't involve a wing falling off. Taken together, it begins to add up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daTkqBae3gA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daTkqBae3gA)
Sure, but by the time enough rounds to have really significant such effects on the massive Mossie wing have hit it, by AH model the wing would long since have departed the aircraft.
Concentrated fire is what you want, in both AH and WWII. Wing guns were set to converge for a reason.
-
Sure, but by the time enough rounds to have really significant such effects on the massive Mossie wing have hit it, by AH model the wing would long since have departed the aircraft.
Concentrated fire is what you want, in both AH and WWII. Wing guns were set to converge for a reason.
But in WWII, effective concentration meant "Most rounds hitting the targeted plane" not "most rounds hitting the same two foot of wing-root (And if half your rounds are hitting what is labeled "outboard" wing, then you get halfway to a wingroot severed and halfway to an outboard section severed, which means you get squat.)" They flew with actual wind, turbulence, and other random factors, sans icons to tell range and didn't have hundreds or thousands of hours of gunnery practice at actual human flown airplanes under their belts, as most of us do. Yet they still brought down fighters with .50s and .303s.
-
But in WWII, effective concentration meant "Most rounds hitting the targeted plane" not "most rounds hitting the same two foot of wing-root (And if half your rounds are hitting what is labeled "outboard" wing, then you get halfway to a wingroot severed and halfway to an outboard section severed, which means you get squat.)" They flew with actual wind, turbulence, and other random factors, sans icons to tell range and didn't have hundreds or thousands of hours of gunnery practice at actual human flown airplanes under their belts, as most of us do. Yet they still brought down fighters with .50s and .303s.
That is not what I observe in guncam footage. While rounds are not focused in a 2x2 area, nor do I ever see a 109 or 190 being spackled from wingtip to wingtip AH's contrated fire is also not in a 2x2 area, even from a 109, P-38 or Mossie's centerline mounted guns.
I think you are mistaken that hitting within a 54' area (a Mossie's wingspan) would be considered "concentrated fire". I also think you are over estimating the effectiveness of an individual .50 hit, or that you are comparatively underestimating the effectiveness of an individual 20mm hit.
-
I also think you are over estimating the effectiveness of an individual .50 hit, or that you are comparatively underestimating the effectiveness of an individual 20mm hit.
Actually I think most players make something of the opposite mistake because of the in-game experience. Consider the curious case of the C-Hog-in real life a limited production run aimed primarily at ground attack. In game, it was such a revelation in air-to-air lethality and such an advantage over the regular 6 .50 hog that it led to the invention of the perk system. They could have put cannons in all planes *if* it had been as large an advantage in killing fighters as it is in AHII.
-
Actually I think most players make something of the opposite mistake because of the in-game experience. Consider the curious case of the C-Hog-in real life a limited production run aimed primarily at ground attack. In game, it was such a revelation in air-to-air lethality and such an advantage over the regular 6 .50 hog that it led to the invention of the perk system. They could have put cannons in all planes *if* it had been as large an advantage in killing fighters as it is in AHII.
The US Navy had been trying to change to cannons. Your comment here at is ignoring historical context.