Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Virage on March 11, 2002, 02:08:44 AM
-
Sorry if I'm opening an old wound here, but this question has been on my mind for a while.
How can the P-38 turn so well with a high wing loading of 53 lbs/sq ft. ?
-
A few main reasons.
1. More propwash over the wing surface = higher effective airspeed = more lift
2. Higher lift coefficient before stalling (also part of the reason it suffers worse compressibility)
3. Higher aspect ratio = less induced drag = faster turning speed = faster turning rate
-
The 53lbs/sq ft wing load is for the 17,500 lb gross weight. The P-38L turns better when less fuel is carried to reduce the wing loading. It could be more like 46 lbs/sq ft with light fuel and ammo if I did the math right.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
Dont forget the use of fowler flaps...they provide a better lift to drag ratio than the typical flap seen on most ww2 planes.
xBAT
-
Because its beautiful.
-
Unlike most fighter flaps, the flaps on the P-38 actually add wing area. A P-38 will NOT turn very well without using its flaps. This makes it a bit tougher to fly a P-38 in AH because the flaps auto-retract if you get a little too fast. Also, a P-38 pilot could cut the throttle on his inboard engine in a turn and this will make the plane turn tighter still. There are some maneuvers a P-38 can do that supposedly "more maneuverable" planes like the Spit 9 simply can't follow.
The reason the P-38 doesn't always do so well in AH, I suspect, is most the people flying it fly it like other fighters and don't mess with the flaps and engine too much. This would cause the P-38 to lose many of its advantages.
J_A_B
-
"There are some maneuvers a P-38 can do that supposedly "more maneuverable" planes like the Spit 9 simply can't follow"
Eh? Id love to know ONE :)
-
hehehehe wish AH 38 had the AW gas mileage. I could load a 38 with 20% gas and that be all I need for a 4 or 5 kill hop. Ahhh the glory days of AW :)
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Tac,
38's do inverted flat spins the best.
DmdNexus
-
Hi,
I have no idea what the math is, but the stories I have read of it from two sources, (Martin Caiden's "Fork Tailed Devil" and Francis Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" pretty much agree that it was very manueverablie in real life. For all I have have heard Robert Johnson criticized for stretching of the truth, in his book, written with Martin Caiden, called "Thunderbolt" he describes a scene where he watched a BF109 on the tail of a P-38 lose it in a turn, snaproll and auger in.
My problem with the AH version is that this P-38 snaprolls in low speed turns way too easy. Supposedly snap rolling at low speed is caused primarily by propellor torque, but the P-38L as zero net torque. So where are these viscious snap rolls coming from?
I know the story of Tommy McQuire and all. How we got in trouble and augered making a slow tight turn, but the J's that he was flying had problems with the turbo charger regulators that caused the engines to hiccup. At low speeds this is like a momentary engine failure and in a tight turn could cause the snap roll that supposedly killed him. But, the real cause of his death is still more or less speculation.
Still, P-38s should not snap roll this badly in slow tight turns. The 38 should be far less prone to this than any single engine fighter, especially the really high powered jobs from late in the war.
-
oltos, ive found that 90% of my snap rolls are caused by the MF flaps auto-retracting the instant they hit a certain speed. In very slow, full flap out fight, when the 38 is almost at 70mph or so and turning with nose above horizon, and you manage to stallfight the con into making HIM nose down and level before he augers, point nose to him to get a snapshot... you stop turning, your engines speed you up to about 140 or 150.. flap retracts,WHAM you snap-roll/enter into an instant spin. Same thing happens on long-loop fights, flaps just TOUCH the 250mph mark, retract, WHAM, snap roll.. you lose the fight thanks to a feature the real 38 never had. :(
Flaps should NOT retract at all. Make them rip out if one exceeds 320mph with them deployed, but not this flap equivalent of a castration. For a plane that relies on its flaps, this autoretract thingy is the *SNIP* at the apple.
-
I know the story of Tommy McQuire and all. How we got in trouble and augered making a slow tight turn, but the J's that he was flying had problems with the turbo charger regulators that caused the engines to hiccup. At low speeds this is like a momentary engine failure and in a tight turn could cause the snap roll that supposedly killed him. But, the real cause of his death is still more or less speculation.
Not to mention he still had his droptanks.
As well, the 38's counter-rotating props took care of torque, but I would imagine that would change if the pilot were to apply throttle differently to each engine.
-
Originally posted by Tac
"There are some maneuvers a P-38 can do that supposedly "more maneuverable" planes like the Spit 9 simply can't follow"
Eh? Id love to know ONE :)
Lowell's Cloverleaf maneuver. The Spitfire XI driver had to buy a case of beer when he lost the mock duel to Lowell and his P-38L.
Ack-Ack
-
Ahhhh the clover leaf turn :)
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Cloverleaf wont work vs AH spit. It does work against 109's and others, but not against the spit. Why? Spit can keep turning hard and constantly until very low speeds, almost as low as the 38. The AH torque is almost nonexistant in all planes except the 109 and 190 & 152s.
-
One thing that DOES work in AH a lot of the time is a very tight, slow speed downward spiral with your inboard engine cut and flaps out. I haven't flown the P-38 a whole lot, but I have flown it enough to use and succeed with this tactic online. It's not as effective as it was in AW but it can still work.
Basically what happens is the salivating Spit driver who you're fighting doesn't bother to chop his throttle and he speeds up in the downward spiral and can't follow you. No this doesn't work against the occasional Spit driver who is thinking but most of them aren't. It's also not a good idea versus Spit 5's, but against Spit 5's the P-38 has a large speed and climb advantage and can E-fight them effectively.
I wouldn't want to fight a Spit 1 vs 1 on the deck; P-38 needs some altitude to play with. If I was alone on the deck I'd do vertical loops and try to get the spitty driver to auger.
J_A_B
-
thats odd.. the only place where I can actually have a chance of beating a spit is on the deck.
The problem with the spits is that they can dive much faster than the 38, retain a much higher top speed for longer than a 38 after the dive and their zoom rate is almost the same.
When I meet a higher spit, I dont even think I'll be able to beat it. I'll try and powerdive away.. the only advantage the 38 has is its higher roll rate at high speeds, so if you can stay away from compression you can sometimes flat-sciscor into the spit's 6, but ONLY at speeds above 400mph...and doing that is hard enough.
On the deck, the spits suffer from slow accel..and since they dont have space to dive and pick up E, the 38 has the adv. to run away. Stall-fighting the spit only works if the spit is REAL close to you, about d400 or so, making the spit desperate to get a shot while you twist and dodge and turn until the speed goes below 100mph.. and then HOPE you can stallfight the spit before he sprays you with the 20mm hizookas. Problem: Even with full flaps out, at 60mph stall fighting, the spit is STILL very much under control, with little torque affecting it (sigh). Its not until the spit's low accel makes him stall or nose down to prevent a stall does the 38 have the chance to get a kill or get away.
-
?
Why such big gaps in AH flight model???
P-38 compresses below 10k only LW planes have torque modeled things like that??? It kinda makes that game seem like a poorly modeled one.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Because BigCrate there aren't huge gaps.
Its funny that you guys were warm and fuzzy with AW all those years, but you come to AH and start complaining immediately. Ironic really when you consider that AH is lightyears ahead of what you use too have.
Torque only for LW? Come on, that doesn't even deserve an answer sinces its just plain inacccurate. And 38's compressing below 10k? I suggest you do some research into compression, and its causes before you make such a complaint.
True, there are minor issues in the game overall, but it really gets down to nit picky things. Usually things that some pilot brings up because he thinks it will make "his ride" better than everyone elses.
Autoretracting flaps work the same for all planes. And while I agree that they shouldn't do that, I see why that "feature" is in the game for "gameplay" reasons.
The rest of the "complaints" in this thread are highly subjective and very open to interpretation. In other words, its easy to squeak about, but very hard to prove.
-
well verm, I take any 109 up, get it near or below 100mph.. and pull hard.. that plane will kick over. Try that in, say, a n1k.. it will turn allll the way down to low 50 mph, where the plane cant keep nose up .. but torque effect (plane twisting on itself).. not even feel it. Spit does the same. Im just saying that the 109 and 190 and 152 have a real torque effect on them. Heck, just look at the f4u, THE monster torque ride in the us inventory.. in AH its a popsiclecat that barely has torque effects. All this is one of the things which a P-38 should have a tremendous advantage over the single engined rides in the slow speed torque department, but here its not exploitable unless you vs a 109, 190 or 152. So in my opinion, torque modeling is sadly lacking. that is the one and only thing I miss from the pre-FM change era.
-
Tac: Our touque is very close to real life on all planes , you sure you are not talking about some other effect?
Torque is very simply TORQUE = HP / PROPRPM
-
Lesse... the force that makes the 109 turn worse to the right than to the left.. or that makes the 190 flip on itself if you real slow and at full engine power/wep... the force which made the F4U be real touchy to fly in slow speeds (and in pre-FM change made the plane be hard to land/takeoff/loop with because the engine would twist the plane into a spin).. that the Torque we talking about yes?
-
The term "torque" is often used to describe the effects of spiral slipstream.
What I notice in AH is prop torque and spiral slipstream. There may be engine torque and P-factor modeled but it's hard to separate the effect from spiral slipstream so that you could notice it.
To see prop torque effects just pull the nose up or push it down. You'll see the ball move indicating yaw in response to pitch changes.
The "torque" that rolls a single engine fighter and causes yaw on takeoff is the spiral slipstream. To see the effect of spiral slipstream just fly without trimming. Turn off combat trim and don't use auto trim. You'll notice the difference between full power at low speed, full power at high speed, low power at low speed, and low power at high speed. You can also pull up into a climb, cut power and wait for the stall horn, then give full power. In a single engine fighter you'll roll, in the P-38 you won't.
You'll also notice a tendency in a single engine fighter to roll left in a stall even in a right turn. In the P-38 you'll roll into the turn in either direction.
You lose roll damping in a stall regardless of torque so even a twin engine is likely to roll when deeply stalled and a single engine fighter can roll in a stall with the engine off.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
CC FLS, and what happens to planes at really slow speeds & engine at full power/wep? Pulling G's?
"Turn off combat trim and don't use auto trim"
Tried it, besides from a slight roll to the side there's very little force acting on you. Try it, get a full gas n1k (1990HP in a light airframe), point its nose straight up, WEP it, see what speed it hits until the plane begins to have control problems. WITHOUT trim (all trim tabs on center). I get it to 55mph using a slight rudder and rolling slightly to opposite side of the slight torque roll... before the plane even begins to complain, you can keep it under control easily, with very little rudder and a little roll/nose up or down to compensate..until 20mph, where the plane all by itself dips wing and pulls you into a perfect hammerhead, once nose is pointed down, you regain FULL control of the plane. You dont even have to react to it, it does it by itself.
Is this "normal" torque behaviour for a light, single engined 1990HP plane on WEP at speeds below 100mph?
SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph (using 1-2 flaps) with a little rudder on it.. and you wont even get torque problems unless you really pull hard on it.
F4U-D , full gas, nose up... get to 50'ish mph with just a tad of roll and a little rudder needed to keep it nose up. And just like the n1k, the F4U-D twists its own nose down below and gets you full control just after it does. If you pull during the nose down you will pull the plane into a spin. Read again: if YOU pull. Leave it alone till nose down and its all peachy. Is this what the torque monster F4U of legend behaves like? Ensign Eliminator?
Heck, I may be confusing a term or something, but doesnt all this look weird to ye?
-
Why would you go straight up? If you want to compare flying characteristic's some component of lift should oppose gravity. To go straight up you need a zero lift AOA. With no lift there is no stall.
I haven't read anything that said the N1K2 had a poor hammerhead recovery.
The Spitfire pilot manual says it's very stable and even recommends keeping your feet off the rudder pedals for most of your flying.
Some people have read that the P-38 didn't snap roll easily in an accelerated stall in a turn. Here's a story by a P-38 pilot who snapped into a spin in a turn. It was his first combat mission. Note that his leader, who was not a novice, also spun.
http://www.p38assn.org/stories_03-01.htm
I think the P-38 dive flaps could be improved a little, I think it should be faster with WEP at 25k and I wonder if it rolls into the turn on a stall a bit too easily but I think the P-38 is modeled pretty well.
You can't expect Hitech to adjust the flight models every time somebody reads something online. You can probably find conflicting data on most aircraft. You also have to remember that we fly a simplified flight model. It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft even if it's as good as it can get.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
"It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft"
"SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph "
I guess you 2 agree on something, at least :)
J_A_B
-
Alright i'm home from school time fer my 2 cents :).
Verm I think AH is way better than AW.. But AW had more stuff to play with. (ie choose between TAS or IAS, floating gunsight, custom gas %s).. I miss those things you could custom made your stuff to the way you want it.. Here you can't.:( Both AW and AH 38s was missed modeled some. Both sims had the dive flaps wrong. And I think the speed was wrong for the P-38J in AW. And I also think the speed for thr P-38L in AH is wrong.. It should be able to keep up with any late wat LW plane and at some alts walk away from the 51D. I'm just in search of the TRUTH Verm nothing more.. The P-38 in both AW and AH could use some TLC.
I'm not trying to whine about anything.. Some of the things I whine about the 38 I can correct in my flying. And if yall read my other post. Yall will see I asked some ?s about the how the 38 compresses easier than other planes. Really I want is the dive flaps fixed, auto flap retract thingy gone, and have prop pitch control.. Other than that I'm just peachy with the 38. Now if yall wanna get into the F4U climb rate we can do that to. :) Hell I'm getting tired of posting some good info about something. And it just getting blown off. :( Like well we can't use that or we can't do that. Or no one even listens.
And that is just my 2 cents worth.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"It isn't always going to respond like a real aircraft"
"SpitIX at full fuel and WEP'd can keep pulling 4-6 g's on a constant turn down to 70mph "
I guess you 2 agree on something, at least :)
J_A_B
I don't agree that the Spit IX will pull 4 G's under 180mph. :rolleyes:
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
BigCrate, :) I have no problem what so ever with people asking questions, or trying to learn more. And there's nothing wrong with questioning the accuracy of the flight modeling in AH either (if you have real proof or data) . But its all in how you approach it.
The problem I have is when someone walks into a new community and immediately starts "This game is PORKED!! Its TOTALLY wrong !!!!" and then proceeds to show that they know very little to nothing about the subject of which they're talking about.
For instance on the subject of compression. Instead of making a statement that the compression in AH is wrong, why not ask the question "why am I compressing at low altitude? I thought that it was a problem only at high altitude". Then someone who knows alot about the subject (and I don't claim to know alot, just enough) could have told you that its a function of the density of air and the speed of sound, so that it more of a problem at high altitude (it occurs at a lower IAS due to the less dense air), but that if you get the aircraft going fast enough its going to be a problem at any altitude.
If you think the P-38L is too slow at altitude, find some data to back up that claim. To be honest its quite easy to prove or disprove, since there's a TON of data out there on the P-38. And then you need to perform flight tests in AH, document your procedure and results, and then compare the two. If your right, or the data is somewhat inconclusive, post your results here and talk about it. To be honest, unless something drastic has changed in the P-38 in the last version or two, the P-38 should be right on the money in regards to speed vs altitude. I suggest investing in a copy of "America's Hundred Thousand" which has alot of great data.
You can learn alot about aircraft on these boards, but you have to learn how to approach the community.
-
I'll address one thing. OH man we griped in AW too. 'bout constantly. We griped about alt monkies. We griped about not enuogh eye candy. We griped about TOO MUCH eye candy. You name we griped about. Hell we even griped about the WEATHER, or lack thereof. Regarding AH, my biggest gape (not a gripe really, just leaves me gaping), at AH is how the scoring tells you that 3/4 of this game has not got much to do with playing the other players. That so much of a "combat flight game" is dedicated to supporting some turf war just seems odd. But, oh WELL, Im here and I will play the whole game if I can. But it still makes a body feel weird.
But there are some really great responses to all of these things about the P-38. Wow what a lot of really well thought out stuff! Just to continue a bit. Torque vs. Slipstream (sometimes called P-Factor according to one of my instructors). In these WWII fighters you had both effects. Robert Johnson went to far as to say you had to really watch the JUG because if you rolled in the same direction as the prop rotation it would "autorotate". Thats torque. The P-38's counter rotating engines negated that completely and also negated slip stream effects. And, consideting the nature of propellors, i.e. gyroscopes spinning very fast, I would think that not only would torque be gone but that you would have a net GAIN in stablility. This is borne out in Dean's comments about roll rate in a p-38. From his data, (the pax river fighter conference material from WWII) The p-38 as actually TOO stable for most pilots. One of them he quoted as saying it was odd or something. The problem was with all that inertia and stablility outboard of the center line of roll. It COULD roll quickly, once it got rolling. But the P-38, again according to Dean's stuff, would actually hesitate and balk at changing attitude in the roll axis. I imagine if you turn the dampening up around 60% on roll for the AH p38 you could see pretty much what he describes. But once in a tight turn the P-38 had the advantage of NOT rolling when it stalled. It just mushed outward in the turn. They guy behind him would fall victim to his engine and propellor torque and depart controlled flight.
In Caiden's book several pilots reported that they studied the german planes to see which way their engines turned so that they could make their evasives in such a way as to force the German to roll in the direction of prop rotation.
Now this is all just from the history books. Caiden uses a lot of primary source stuff, in that he interviewed numbers of veterans of the plane. Dean on the other hand is almost a single source work, (not really a great idea in historical writing), but his MAIN thing was to publish the results gained at the Fighter Conferences not necessarily produce THE definitive document nailing down AC performance. Still Dean was an aeronautical engineer and his discussions of aerodynamic forces is detailed in the extreme, cept he did manage to leave out the math. (Thank god, heed a lozt me there).
So, If I have a big beef it's with the treatment of the 38. It never seems to have programmed into it the virtues it's pilots said it had, and it always seems to have all of it's vices. In AH it even has vices that ALL of the documentation I can find contradict.
For me it isn't so much a beef against Aces High, as a frustration in that I want to fly a P-38 as it has been described by it's pilots. Not some fiction brought about by the coding of a computer simulation of flight that is missing things.
As for not complaining about AW, ohmygod, you think we're bad NOW! LOL we griped CONSTANTLY in AW. I think it was a desire to get shed of us that finally caused them to sell to EA.
All in all a great discussin guys. Glad I came back to read it.
-
Well, seems that Caidin used many sources but it also appears that there was no source critic at all. Personally I rate Caidin's works as semi-fictional.
gripen
-
Originally posted by OLtos
But the P-38, again according to Dean's stuff, would actually hesitate and balk at changing attitude in the roll axis. I imagine if you turn the dampening up around 60% on roll for the AH p38 you could see pretty much what he describes.
Well, this is one vice AH doesn't model. :)
-
Ok i do't mean to poke holes but here goes-
Tac- How exactly did you pull 4-6 G's @ 70mph in a spit IX? And how did you manage to give it 2 notches of flaps? It's either up or down.
AKAK- you know much about the spit XI? Its a recce plane, it was damn heavy. It carried lots of fuel- it had a range of over 2000 miles. A plane for dogfighting by no means.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Well, seems that Caidin used many sources but it also appears that there was no source critic at all. Personally I rate Caidin's works as semi-fictional.
gripen
Indeed, some portions of his work are utterly fictional. While it may be fun reading, DO NOT trust anything he says that is not accompanied by footnotes or a bibliographical reference.
My regards,
Widewing
-
p-38 is, was, looks like and always will be a sack of ****.
I hope my contribution to this thread is both enlightening and educational, have a nice day.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1071342328.jpg)
-
What's that ugly thing in the middle of the picture, covering up all the pretty clouds? Some new species of dung beetle? :D
-
Gents,
I have also wondered why the P-38 is supposed to turn even as well as it does in AH. I have heard many annecdotal stories to that effect but I have never seen the proof. Here are a few points to ponder.
1. Despite the high aspect ratio of the P-38 it had two large engine nacelles acting as spoilers in the wing disrupting airflow and lowering Clmax. This could or should negate the gains achieved by the increased aspect ratio.
2. I have heard many people say that the P-38 had low drag wings. It did not, it had the same airfoil as the F6F, F4U and FW190. It did have low drag flaps.
3. Wells mentioned that the P-38 had a larger wing surface covered by prop wash lowering the stall speed. This is tue but prop wash does not lower an accerated stall just a 1G stall.(I hedge this with the fact that Wells knows much more than me but this is my understanding)
4. For a reason I do not understand the P-38 had the unique trait of having a higher stall speed power on than off.
5. In flight test against the A6M2 the P-38F was no better off in low speed turns than any other allied fighter.
6. In flight test done against the A6M5 the P-38J actually faired worse than the P-51D-5 in low speed turns.
7. In the AFDU test of the P-38F it's turning was even with the P-47B except in climbing turns.
I believe that as is stated in the British report that the aircraft turned well for an Aircraft with high wing loading but not well in comparison with the likes of the Spit, Hurri or A6M.
-
For one, I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that the 38 could out turn or even turn with an A6M, Hurricane, or Spit, save for perhaps the poorer turning late model Spits.
Second, while all of your points are potentially valid, they are also unsupported and anecdotal, the two things you just complained about.
-
Ecliptik,
For one, I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that the 38 could out turn or even turn with an A6M, Hurricane, or Spit, save for perhaps the poorer turning late model Spits.
Ever fly WB2? There is an entire comminty that believes a P-38 should be one of the top 5 best turning A/C of WW2. Recently on these boards there was a very long thread about P-38's out turning Spitfires.
they are also unsupported and anecdotal, the two things you just complained about.
Actually nothing I posted is annecdotal. I have copies of every report I quoted. The engines Nacelles in the wing is fact. The stall speeds with power on comes from the 1944 JFC test and the airfoil from the P-38 is NACA series 2300, outer section was series 4400.
-
F4UDOA,
I'm not sure if the P-38 behaves same way as some other planes in the power on stalls but explanation for higher power on stall than power off stall might be something like this. First we must assume that lift of the wing is generated by air particles which hit the wing in the angle of attack (ie Newton way to explain lift of the wing, lets forget Bernouli for a while). In the power off stall direction of the air flow which hit wing is constant all over the wing span. But in the power on stall direction of the airflow might be different behind propellers because thrust line of the engine might be diffrent than direction of the plane ie propeller bend airflow downwards in the high angle of attack. Therefore air particles hit wing at lower angle behind proppelers than in free airflow and therefore lift behind propellers power on is lower than in free airflow power off.
gripen
-
one note where the P-38F is used to compair turning ability against other aircraft is that most P-38F series aircraft did not have the maneouver flap setting. AMT states that around 570 P-38F a/c were produced, of this figure 121 a/c were P-38F-15-LO which had the maneouver flap setting.
I am sure most are aware of the turn compairison in AMT for the P-63, which states that the P-38J was easily out turned by the P-63 if the J did not use the maneouver flap setting and it was about the same if the J did use this feature. It goes on to state that the P-63 could get on the tail of a P-51D in 3-4 turns and a P-47 in 2.
-
gripen--
Unfortunately you can't ignore Bernoulli or the rest of the fluid flow. Newton can be used, but you can't limit your analysis to only the particles hitting the bottom of the wing. The whole system has to be considered--in particular the resulting property of CLmax and the stall beyond it. In the general case, the power-on prop lowers the effective angle of attack of the wing, which increases the actual AOA before stall, which lowers stall speed.
I don't know either why the 38 has a higher stall with power on. Wierd.
-
bolillo_loco,
Relative maneuverability depends also on altitude, the Clmax of the P-38 dropped very quickly when mach number increased if compared to P-47 and P-51. It seems that the P-38 turned quite well at low altitude but not so well at high (with or without using flaps for turning). I don't know if this is modeled in the AH.
gripen
-
mold,
All I can say that in some cases increasing down thrust of the propeller certainly decreases power on stall speed and that might be the explanation also for stall speeds of the P-38. Otherwise I fully agree that Bernoulli should not be ignored; I'm only offering possible solution for a problem which is true in some cases.
gripen
-
On one side of the engine the AoA would be increased while on the other side the AoA would be reduced due to the corkscrew airflow of the propeller. Close to stall speed this would mean that on one side of the engine the reduced AoA would largely negate the increased airflow from the propeller while on the other side of the engine the increased AoA would make the wing stall. Just a though.
-
I was thinking the same thing Gsholz. In AH the props turn such that the blades are rising on the inboard side, so they would increase the effective AoA over the inboard portion of the wing. So theoretically if you were flying power off at the edge of a stall, adding power would actually cause a stall. But its possible the designers might have accounted for that using washout or some other means.
-
In AH all twin engine fighters turn better than anything else in here.
-
B5N turns best.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
2. I have heard many people say that the P-38 had low drag wings. It did not, it had the same airfoil as the F6F, F4U and FW190. It did have low drag flaps.
This is incorrect. They all had different airfoils.
P-38L: NACA 23016 for inner wings, NACA 4412 for outer wings.
F4U: NACA 23018-15 for inner wing panels, NACA 23015-8 for outer panels
F6F: NACA 23015-6 "Modified" for inner panels, NACA 23009 for outer panels.
The P-38 had an aspect ratio of 8.24
The F4U had an aspect ratio of 5.35
The F6F had an aspect ratio of 5.51
My regards,
Widewing
-
WW,
I know the outer panels are different but the inner I have listed as 2300 for all including the F7F.
Point being the that the P-38's wing is not a low drag design. I have also read that the P-38 and the Lockheed Constallation Airliner/Transport have the same wing design both inner and out sections.
The P-38 did have a high aspect ratio but those engine Nacelles in the wing act as spoilers to lower the CLmax.
-
P-38 is one of main things I am going to be curious to try out with new AH2 Flight model. I am hopeful this is a plane that will benefit greatly from the changes.