Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: TeeDog on April 24, 2003, 07:41:53 PM
-
I've been doing some research on the P-38 and I found that the early P-38 had a problems with high speeds above 375 mph. But when the P-38L came out, it could dived to speeds in excess of 500mph. The reason for it was it had Hydraulic ailerons and Dive brakes.
Now AH has the P-38L in the game, and it can handle speeds greater then 375mph, but no way can you dive close to 500mph. It seems it might be alittle off.
P-38L Diving V-Max Speeds
15,000ft to 10,000ft 390mph
15,000ft to 5,000ft 495mph
10,000ft to 5,000ft 410mph
10,000ft to 1,000ft 500mph
5,000ft to 1,000ft 395mph
-
The AH 38L can dive to 510mph. It will never ever ever ever break the 510 mph, no matter if you dive from 48k with WEP on 90 degree dive.
-
TeeDog,
The pilots hand book on the P-38L shows a 10,000FT dive restriction of 420MPH IAS which is 460TAS.
It says with the use of dive flaps do not exceed the limits by more than 20MPH.
I have this manual in electronic copy. I'll see if I can post the pages.
-
It topped out at just over 510 for the same reason in compressed earlier than later model planes. Drag. As for the diver breaks, always remember they weren't really able to slow the plane down. They just slowed down how FAST you accelerated going downhill. The other effet was to shange the shape of the airflow around the wing at a critical point. I don't understand all of it, but apparently it worked really well.
But, the compression thing in Aces High is not really that big a deal. Just dial in some nose up trim and you'll pull out just fine. Compression is not modeled to anywhere near its actual nightmareish fury. Mos pilots did not survive a dive into full compression. The wing stalls and the nose tucks under and you wind up disintegrating in a negative G outside loop at 500 MPH plus. None of that will happen to you in Aces High.
-
The reason the P-38 suffered from compression was the shape of the wing. It was a thick high aspect ratio wing chosen for its ability to hold large fuel tanks and to give a very high climb rate. However the thickness and profile cause air to be accelerated to speeds in excess of the speed of sound at true ground speeds above 470 MPH, but the speed at which compression begins is varied by altitude and atmospheric conditions.
Early on, the fillets where the center wings join the cockpit nacelle did not have a large generous radius. This was changed in the early combat ready models.
The dive flaps (they were most certainly NOT brakes) had two functions. The first was to alter the shape of the wings and slow the speed of the air flowing over them down. The second was to provide a nose up pitch to counteract "mach tuck", the tendency for a plane to tuck its nose down when entering compression.
Kelly Johnson repeatedly requested time in the NACA wind tunnel in order to alter the shape of the wing slightly and test other modifications to raise the threshold of compression. However, NACA feared the high speeds Johnson needed to run would damage the wind tunnel, and Johnson's request was denied. Johnson was loathe to test the effects in the real world without first doing tests in the tunnel since one test pilot was killed during early testing (Johnson heard the crash as it happened from his office, said he'd never forget that sound).
P-38 ace and test pilot John Lowell said that you could avoid compression by doing a series of slow smooth barrel rolls while diving. He was able to dive the pre J model P-38's from altitudes of well over 28K feet this way repeatedly.
P-38 pilots I know say they had ZERO trouble with compression once the dive flaps were in use. They also say that below 20K, you could dive all you wanted and not compress.
Levier, Meyer, and Mattern (test pilots) all dove the P-38 in compression tests at speeds reportedly well in excess of 500 MPH (reportedly to around 550MPH). There were instances of the tail booms bending, and some sheetmetal panels coming off, but reported that the P-38 was quite safe in a dive provided common sense was applied.
-
Hi Hilts,
>However the thickness and profile cause air to be accelerated to speeds in excess of the speed of sound at true ground speeds above 470 MPH, but the speed at which compression begins is varied by altitude and atmospheric conditions.
470 mph equals Mach 0.65 - the P-38's critical Mach number - at about 15000 ft. Above that, 470 mph means even higher Mach numbers.
>P-38 ace and test pilot John Lowell said that you could avoid compression by doing a series of slow smooth barrel rolls while diving.
Which means that he kept the dive slow, which is of limited tactical value.
>P-38 pilots I know say they had ZERO trouble with compression once the dive flaps were in use.
Obviously, this must have been because the dive flaps enabled them to avoid regions of the envelope where they would have encountered big trouble even with the dive flaps. Critical Mach number was raised to 0.685 by those, which still leaves the red lantern with the P-38.
>They also say that below 20K, you could dive all you wanted and not compress.
At 15000 ft, an indicated airspeed of 450 mph equals Mach 0.785 - a speed a P-51, a Spitfire, a Me 109 or a Fw 190 can handle, but far more than you could survive in a P-38.
>Levier, Meyer, and Mattern (test pilots) all dove the P-38 in compression tests at speeds reportedly well in excess of 500 MPH (reportedly to around 550MPH).
Speeds reports like these are generally the result of airspeed indication errors. The P-38 was one of the first fighters equipped with a Mach meter for testing to eliminate these errors, so meaningful test results for the P-38 will probably be stated in Mach numbers.
For comparison: 550 mph TAS at 15000 ft equal Mach 0.76, clearly out of reach for the P-38.
Regars,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Believe whatever you will Hohun, you've followed me around for over 3 years arguing with me. I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. I know what I was told by highly decorated pilots who haven't the slightest reason to lie. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me.
Have a nice day.:rolleyes:
-
Hi Hilts,
>Believe whatever you will Hohun, you've followed me around for over 3 years arguing with me.
I've not "followed you around for over 3 years arguing with you", I've just used some of the same public message boards as you to add my 2 cents to yours on a few occassions.
>I know what I was told by highly decorated pilots who haven't the slightest reason to lie. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me.
It's not what "I choose to believe", but what the documented facts are. Kelly Johnson himself counted the low limiting Mach number towards the main disadvantages of the P-38. Do you want to call him a liar, too? :-)
(If you lack the background to understand the difference between providing precise technical information and calling someone a liar, you should at least try to become aware of that.)
Let me clarify: I'm convinced that your highly decorated pilots told the truth about having "ZERO trouble with compression" - simply because they avoided fast dives. It was the smart thing to do. It just doesn't tell you anything about how fast the P-38 could go in a dive.
You provided fuzzy statements, I provided the context that's necessary to draw the correct conclusions about these statements.
You choose to play the "honour of the veterans" card? Fine with me, just try and point out where I'm contradicting the veterans.
If you shrink away from that - well, lame bluff then.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
in AH the p38 DOES lock at high speeds around 500mph (TAS)
allso at around 400+ there is a long lag from the move of the stick to the start of the roll itself although the roll is very fast
anyone care to explain?
-
The honor of the veterans is hard not to step on, when the veterans don't all agree.....
-
Hohun, you have flat out stated on multiple occaisions
that the fight that Galland and Lowell described at
the "Gathering of Eagles" never occured. Now, Joe Foss published it in his book "Top Gun", Gabby Gabreski, John Lowell,
and Adolph Galland all acknowleded it was true. But that is not good enough for you. Now, they were there, they said it happened, you say it didn't. Are you calling them liars, idiots, morons, or senile?
The difference between talking about technical issues and saying that four decorated veterans are lying about something they say happened (they were there and you were not) is pretty clear to me.
No, the pilots I spoke with didn't say they did slow dives, they said they pushed over and followed their enemy right on down. After getting the P-38's with dive flaps. And below 20K before dive flaps.
I never said that the P-38 did not have a dive weakness, and you'll never be able to make an honest quote of me saying such, especially regarding the early models. I did say it was not nearly the issue everyone seems to make of it. No, I'm not calling Kelly Johnson a liar either. I'll leave the calling of people who flew planes in combat or designed them liars to you, you seem to have it down pat.
No one ever said you had to go 500+ MPH in a dive in combat to be effective anyway. After the first turn in air to air combat in piston engine prop fighters you aren't going that fast anyway.
I stick by my statement that Art, Stan and others said they could push over at 25K in a P-38 and follow a 109 or a 190 without problem, they were there, they said they did it, and no one else who was there has said otherwise. They said compression was not an issue below 20K in combat, I'll have to take their word, I wasn't there. Why lie? They never said "I pushed over at 450MPH and followed a German in a 600 MPH terminal dive". They said "Several times a 109 or a 190 would split S and I would drop my speed boards and follow him right on down".
You will never believe it, nothing I or anyone else says will make you believe it. So for pilots who were there and say they did do it, they must be stupid, fools, or liars. Most of them had at least 1000 hours of flying time, did in excess of 60 missions (many over 100), so if they said "I was on the tail of a 109 and he rolled over, pulled a split S, and I followed him down from 25K and shot him up" I figure they know what they are talking about. If you don't, that's fine. I have better things to do than argue with you every time someone makes a post about a P-38 and you cannot deal with the fact that it was a superior aircraft and not the cripple you wish to believe it was. I'd say a 4-6:1 kill ratio over enemy aircraft says all that needs saying.
have a nice day.:rolleyes:
-
Hi Hilts,
>Hohun, you have flat out stated on multiple occaisions
that the fight that Galland and Lowell described at
the "Gathering of Eagles" never occured.
That's not even on topic in this thread :-) And where's the quote, anyway?
>I never said that the P-38 did not have a dive weakness
You seem to be highly sensitive to others saying just that, though.
>They said compression was not an issue below 20K in combat, I'll have to take their word, I wasn't there.
Do you have their word that they exceeded Mach 0.75? If you have, then it's a case of HoHun vs. The Veterans. If not, it's just a case of HoHun vs. Hilts.
>I have better things to do than argue with you every time someone makes a post about a P-38 and you cannot deal with the fact that it was a superior aircraft and not the cripple you wish to believe it was.
Hilts, the low Mach limit of the P-38 is a fact. It's not even Mach 0.75, but I'm allowing for a generous margin of error.
Do you mean to suggest the low Mach limit didn't exist? You'd be pretty lonely defending that position.
Do you mean to suggest that a low Mach limit wasn't significant in combat?
Then you should have no issue with me pointing out that the P-38 was inferior in that regard to every other WW2 fighter for which I've ever seen a Mach limit stated.
So what's your point? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The P-38L dive limit chart from the POH.
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/p38dive.pdf
For comparison the FW190A5 from the Navy test. The chart was posted in the cockpit.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/page4.jpg)
-
Hi F4UDOA,
Thanks for the great information! :-)
The revised P-38 dive placard (figure 25A) gives the following limits, converted to Mach numbers:
30000 ft: Mach 0.65
20000 ft: Mach 0.65
10000 ft: Mach 0.63
If you correlate the IAS and TAS values provided by figure 25A, you can verify that the airspeed indicator gives errenously high readings as I pointed out above. That effect was not unique to the P-38 and was normal for all airspeed indicators of the period.
The Fw 190 values are uncorrected and not directly comparable as they'd have to be adjusted down somewhat, but at least they give a general impression:
25000 ft: Mach 0.77
16400 ft: Mach 0.76
10000 ft: Mach 0.74
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Indeed the CAS chart shows a large gap in the IAS to TAS.
At 350MPH it reads 17MPH to high and 12 MPH to high at 300MPH.
I will post it too. I have an electronic copy of the P-38L manual.
No time right now.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>Hohun, you have flat out stated on multiple occaisions
that the fight that Galland and Lowell described at
the "Gathering of Eagles" never occured.
That's not even on topic in this thread :-) And where's the quote, anyway?
>I never said that the P-38 did not have a dive weakness
You seem to be highly sensitive to others saying just that, though.
>They said compression was not an issue below 20K in combat, I'll have to take their word, I wasn't there.
Do you have their word that they exceeded Mach 0.75? If you have, then it's a case of HoHun vs. The Veterans. If not, it's just a case of HoHun vs. Hilts.
>I have better things to do than argue with you every time someone makes a post about a P-38 and you cannot deal with the fact that it was a superior aircraft and not the cripple you wish to believe it was.
Hilts, the low Mach limit of the P-38 is a fact. It's not even Mach 0.75, but I'm allowing for a generous margin of error.
Do you mean to suggest the low Mach limit didn't exist? You'd be pretty lonely defending that position.
Do you mean to suggest that a low Mach limit wasn't significant in combat?
Then you should have no issue with me pointing out that the P-38 was inferior in that regard to every other WW2 fighter for which I've ever seen a Mach limit stated.
So what's your point? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
No, it is not the topic of this thread, but rather an example of your position. If I want to waste precious time, yes, I can go find several instances of you clearly stating that the fight as Lowell described it TO Galland with Gabreski and Foss (not to mention several others) listening and watching could not possibly have ever occured. You said it was not possible due to the time frame, the location, the planes available, and any number of reasons. Funny, you seem to be the only one questioning their memory or their honesty. I just have to ask, what does ANY of them have to gain by lying about it? And why, when Lowell and Galland, the two who fought the battle, said it was a fact, YOU seem to feel you are more qualified than they are, and YOU say it did not happen.
No, I'm not sensitive about the dive weakness of the P-38. Every plane has its weaknesses, and that does happen to be a big issue with the P-38, although it is one of few, and is really overstated and overemphasized.
I never said the Mach limit of the P-38 WASN'T low, it is. I just said that the low Mach limit was not the defining element of combat, it isn't.
I never said that critical Mach was not a factor in combat, I said it was not THE DEFINING FACTOR in combat. Regarding prop driven piston engine fighter planes, critical Mach simply is not THE defining factor. Whether you'd like it to be or not, it isn't.
No one ever said they exceeded .75 Mach, or for that matter even .69 Mach. If you have your opponent broken down enough he is FORCED to dive away to save his hide, then you are close, you are gaining, and he is in deep trouble. It DOES NOT mean you are both approaching 450MPH in level flight, and critical Mach will instantly decide the outcome. Quite the contrary. If he is already broken down and must dive then he is most likely very SLOW. If he dives and you are both slow, then it is very likely if your plane accelerates quickly, especially in a dive, you can catch him and finish him long before critical Mach becomes a factor.
I said that several pilots stated on numerous occasions that in the P-38J or later with dive flaps in combat they could easily push over and follow their opponents into a dive, catch him, and hit him. Simple as that. You ASSume that all fights must occur at or near critical altitude and top speed for that altitude, and immediately become a race to critical Mach in a terminal dive, and it just ain't so.
After arguing this with you for three years, I have yet to figure out how you've reached the conclusion that every fight will be decided by a terminal dive to critical Mach. Your argument regarding the P-38 seems to be soley based on critical Mach. Air to air combat is not a race to critical Mach in a dive, it simply just isn't. Live with it.
I have no problem with the fact that the P-38 has a lower critical Mach than many or even most other fighters (whether it does or not). Big fat hairy deal. YOU seem to think it is the defining factor in air to air combat and it ain't. That's where the problem is yours and not mine.
-
The P-38 did not fare well in the ETO because the LW fighters were faster, better divers and better climbers. The P-38 is a wonderful plane, and showed its usefulness in the PTO against the slower Japanese planes, but in the ETO it was out of its league as a fighter. It did however find use in other niches like fighter-bomber and recce duty.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The P-38 did not fare well in the ETO because the LW fighters were faster, better divers and better climbers. The P-38 is a wonderful plane, and showed its usefulness in the PTO against the slower Japanese planes, but in the ETO it was out of its league as a fighter. It did however find use in other niches like fighter-bomber and recce duty.
Wrong. The P-38 did not fare as well with the 8TH AF due to poor management and leadership, look into the performance of the P-38 in the Med, on North Africa, and with the 9TH and 15TH AF. The P-38 did quite well against the Luftwaffe's finest. By most measures, the tally was 4-6 Luftwaffe planes lost to P-38's for every P-38 lost to Luftwaffe aircraft. The fault for the less than stellar performance of the P-38 with the 8TH AF lies with the 8TH AF and their management/tactics, not with the plane. Check stats before you declare the P-38 to be lacking in performance compared to Luftwaffe aircraft. You'll be surprised how well it stacks up. Try reading Stienhoff instead of Galland and you might find the truth.
-
On 21-Nov-42, the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups of the 12th US Air Force arrived in North Africa, their P-38s joining other fighter units in P-40s, P-39s, and Spitfires. After a "muscular" greeting by the Luftwaffe (the two unit's base was bombed during the night of 16-17 November ), the new American fighters carried out their first mission on November 18. Very quickly, Lightnings engaged in the Mediterranean suffered a fate quite contrary to those fighting in the Pacific. Flown by young inexperienced pilots, handicapped by their poor roll rate and unsuitable combat tactics, they underwent terrible reverses against frightening FW 190s of the II./JG 2 and Bf 109Gs of the JG 53 and JG 77, which arrived in Tunisia shortly after Operation "TORCH". Used for support missions by the III./ZG 2 (which became III./SKG 10 on 20-Dec-42), FW 190 (as well as Bf 109G) was going to hold the high edge during its stay in North Africa.
On their side, the two FG suffered such losses in combat that 14th FG had to be withdrawn from combat at the end of January 1943, surrendering its remaining aircraft to the new 82nd FG which arrived on Christmas 1942. The two units continued their interception and escort) missions, with moral rather low.
Success finally came with Operation FLAX, where P-38 were going to destroy many Axis transport aircraft over the Mediterranean from the 5 to April 10, 1943.
The end of the campaign in Tunisia on May 13, 1943 did not prevent the continuation of the missions of P-38 with the return of 14th FG. One can nevertheless assess that in this campaign, the Lightning was hardly remarkable in its operations against Luftwaffe, compared with the brilliances successes gained during the same period in the Pacific against the Japanese. The problems inherent in P-38 operations were reproduced at the time of the first missions escorting the heavy bombers of the 8· Air Force over Western Europe from October 1943, where the losses would prove such that the USAAF was obliged to quickly withdraw P-38 in this type of mission in favor of the P-51 Mustang.
Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.
Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery. The 38 seemed to have plenty of power for a prop job and certainly below 15,000 ft. no German fighter could get away from it.
That may sound pretty low, but if you initiated an engagement at 27,000 ft. going into a shallow dive and making a few parring turns, you could easily lose 10,000 ft. Certainly in a 38 without dive flaps you would not want to drop the nose too sharply above 20,000 ft. As krauts got to know the 38 they would tend to dive sharply away from it, convinced it would not follow. But that was just fine, because the 38's job was to protect the bombers. If a gaggle of 109s approached the bombers, escorting P-38s turned to engage them and the 109s bugged out for the deck, the 38's job was done. Those 109s wouldn't have enough gas to climb back up to altitude, chase the bombers and position for an attack. And if they did, the 38s would turn in to them and the process would repeat.
The krauts figured this out pretty soon and knew they had to hit the 38s. They would climb very high (109s, the 190s weren't seen at very high altitudes)and bounce the 38s, who would be cruising at around 220 or so if they hadn't spotted the krauts. Most losses were the result of surprise bounces, the krauts keeping on moving so there was no chance for retaliation. The 38 formation would be broken up, with guys turning looking for the enemy, leaving a way open for other German fighters to hit the bombers.
The only solution to the surprise bounce was to open up the escort fighter formation, have high cover several thousand feet above the bombers and close escort, and keep your head on a swivel. Of course, simply having MORE escorts also helped. (I would wager that was a big problem for the two early 38 groups. They just didn't have enough people to play both the infield and the outfield.) The trick was to spot the Germans as they maneuvered into position for a bounce. That's where having outstanding eyesight mattered, mattered a LOT more than dive flaps or a few more horsepower. One man in a squadron with exceptional eyesight was a real lifesaver. If a high group of krauts was spotted, some of the escort would be tapped to go after them. They didn't have to shoot them down to succeed. All they needed to do was break up their party and force them to dive away.
On October 15, 1943, P-38H pilots in the 55th Fighter Group flew their first combat mission over Europe at a time when the need for long-range escorts was acute. Just the day before, German fighter pilots had destroyed 60 of 291 Eighth Air Force B-17 Flying Fortresses (see NASM collection) during a mission to bomb five ball-bearing plants at Schweinfurt, Germany. No air force could sustain a loss-rate of nearly 20 percent for more than a few missions but these targets lay well beyond the range of available escort fighters (Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, see NASM collection). American war planners hoped the long-range capabilities of the P-38 Lightning could halt this deadly trend, but the very high and very cold environment peculiar to the European air war caused severe power plant and cockpit heating difficulties for the Lightning pilots. The long-range escort problem was not completely solved until the North American P-51 Mustang (see NASM collection) began to arrive in large numbers early in 1944.
Poor cockpit heating in the H and J model Lightnings made flying and fighting at altitudes that frequently approached 12,320 m (40,000 ft) nearly impossible. This was a fundamental design flaw that Kelly Johnson and his team never anticipated when they designed the airplane six years earlier. In his seminal work on the Allison V-1710 engine, Daniel Whitney analyzed in detail other factors that made the P-38 a disappointing airplane in combat over Western Europe.
-
I remember seeing or reading an anecdote by a 38 pilot that claimed he could turn inside *any* LW plane by simply cutting the throttle to the engine on the side he was turning into. I will look for this source and post it but I remember him saying that in the right hands the 38 was more than a match for LW iron.
G, those quotes you posted, they are all about new squads getting hosed. How about some quotes from 38 squads that were veterans? I for one would like to see them.
Thanks.
-
Diablo, that's sort of exactly the point.
So presumably an "experienced" P-38 pilot would turn inside any LW plane... but then again we also have here the "experten" who've been fighting since 1940 in the Battle of Britain who claim they can turn inside Spitfires with 109s, or even 190s for that matter.
So, just how much scientifical credit can we give to those anecdotal claims? Not by much.
As Scholz did, anecdotal evidence always has an equal amount of counter-evidence(also in an anecdotal form) - which more or less if this continues, nobody would possibly know what's right or wrong.
Same thing with the dive-test debate. Frankly, with no disrespect to Hilts, honestly I can't see much of a "scientific fact" from his arguments. What the veterans "state" is one thing, the real "fact", may be other. The unfortunate fact of life is what one believes in may always be wrong, no matter how sincere and without lying intent.
The P-38 had the Mach limit of 0.685 - that's a cold, mundane fact. So, it's not necessarily Hohun vs Vets. It's the Law of Physics vs Vets - unless the Vets have found a way to warp the physical world of the third dimension, I cannot believe them.
-
Once again, where is it I said anyone exceeded .69 Mach? I did not. I said that they could roll over and follow the enemy down. With dive flaps there was no real concern, without you had to be both good and confident.
Sure, Scholtz can post all the anecdotal evidence from whatever book he wants, the fact remains that the P-38's killed 4-6 Luftwaffe planes for every P-38 lost to Luftwaffe aircraft in Europe. And I can quote books that describe incredibly successful units and actions as well.
The two biggest problems with the P-38 is there weren't enough of them, and bad results due to poor tactics and leadership were blamed on the plane instead of 8TH AF staff and leaders.
The air over Europe at 25-30 thousand feet is no colder than it is over the SW Pacific. That tells anyone with good sense that the problem was the people, not the plane.
The P-38 was a plane that required dedication, practice, and confidence. The three went hand in hand. Take one away, the other two are gone. In the hands of John Lowell, Robin Olds, Jack Ilfrey, Larry Blumer, Erv Ethell, or any number of good pilots, it was deadly. They had confidence, talent, and skill.
It was all too easy to blame the poor performance of the 8TH AF FG's on the P-38, but the fact remains, the P-51 had just as much if not more trouble when it did finally arrive. Further, the P-38 outnumbered the P-51 in numbers deployed to the 8TH AF until April 1944, which was after the Luftwaffe was on its last legs.
Doolittle took over the 8TH AF, and only then, in VERY late 1943 and early 1944 did the 8TH AF turn around. It was a major turnaround in leadership and tactics that made the difference. Doolittle even went so far as to pressure his peacetime employer Shell to provide more and better fuel for the fighters. Further, rather than being tied to the bombers and their slow speed, Doolittle released the fighters to do what they did best, hunt the Luftwaffe.
Doolittle made the decision to replace the P-38 because the P-38 was in such short (critically short) supply, and there were plenty of p-51s. The P-38 was in such high demand and short supply throughout the war that Lockheed was forbidden under any circumstances to have production slowed or halted for more than 48 hours.
By the way, when Doolittle flew a fighter to the continent on 6 June 1944, you know what he flew? That's right, a P-38.
Oh, and just a little side note, that first mission the P-38 flew as escorts, the bomber losses dropped by 60%. Hardly an indictment of the P-38's performance as an escort.
The fault for the lack of escorts until late 1943, and the poor performance of the P-38 and escorts in general until early 1944 can and must be laid squarely at the feet of Tooey Spatz and Ira Eaker. Their failure to get escort squadrons into action properly trained and in a timely manner and then their attempts to blame it on the P-38 and the lack of range of the P-47 is their fault and no one else's.
The P-38 was providing escort service to B-24's in Europe for longer missions than the 8TH AF was flying early in 1944, and doing it against the exact same planes of enemy territory with excellent results. And they were doing it in early 1943. With F and G models as well.
If you want to know the truth about what was wrong with the 8TH AF, read Warren Bodie's latest book on the 8TH AF.
The 8TH AF failed to:
Request, acquire, train, and indoctrinate long range escort units (namely p-38 units) until losses of bombers was so overwhelming they could not be sustained for even 30 days. Even when the units arrived, they were rushed into service with no indoctrination, no in theatre training, and no experienced leadership. The men were not trained on how to properly manage the engines or operate the planes at high altitudes.
Take advantage of experienced pilots made available to them for leadership and training positions. These men had successfully fought the Luftwaffe in P-38's for quite some time before the 8TH AF had ANY operational long range escort units. These men were experienced in air to air combat with the Luftwaffe in the P-38 and with long range escort duty. They were either transferred or placed in low ranking positions with no means to pass on their knowledge and experience.
Use proper tactics for fighter escort missions that were already well known in and use in other theatres.
To acquire drop tanks and learn how to make them work until late 1943/ early 1944.
Problems with the P-38.
The electrical system in the early models was slightly overloaded, and if the props weren't properly maintained, they'd short out.
The early models did not have dive flaps, auxillary outer wing tanks, or proper intercoolers.
It had notoriously poor cockpit heat.
It was complex and more difficult to fly. There were two of every engine and prop control, and little of the management was automatic.
It had limited visibility.
If you want to know the truth about the P-38, from some guys who flew it, go here:
http://www.home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan
there you'll find several articles on the P-38.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/20thfg.html
here you'll find out about the 20TH FG.
http://www.web-birds.com/8th/55/55th.htm
The 55TH FG, first Allied fighters over Berlin, in P-38s as well.
http://www.web-birds.com/8th/364/364.html
The 364TH FG. Flew P-38s to Berlin.
http://www.367thfightergroup.com/
The 367TH FG, home of Larry Blumer.
http://usaaf.com/8thaf/fighter/479fg.HTM
The 479TH FG, home of the last P-38 ace Robin Olds.
Plenty more out there if you'll search for those groups.
-
I said that they could roll over and follow the enemy down. With dive flaps there was no real concern, without you had to be both good and confident.
And as Hohun, not me, have already said, the "roll over, then follow" states a delayed method of pursuit which itself means that the P-38 pilot was not wanting to risk the results of a direct pursuit. What we can logically make out of the barrel-roll procedure is more or less a clear intent of dumping the speed through the maneuver, or elongating the total length of the flight path which to cut it short, means the P-38 could not really "dive".
It's pretty much the same thing as what the BoB Spitfire pilots have mentioned - if the 109 enters a power dive then the Spitfire would roll inverted and then dive. It's a certain method of overcoming the initial shortcomings - which hardly does anything to prove that there weren't any shortcomings in the first place.
As for the the diveflaps, from what people have dug up it would provide a 3 degrees nose up attitude, or a slow but steady pitch up momentum throughout the dive, depending on which situation it was deployed. It should be viewed as a secondary device which would help a pilot avoid a certain dangerous outcome - but was it enough to say "no problem at all"? I sincerely doubt it.
It was a device that would try and help the plane pull out of its death. It's not a device, also as Hohun said, that acted as a full-out airbrake. No airbrake of that era would suspend a plane to a certain max dive speed no matter how well it worked. The P-38 is a massive, heavy plane. Even the relatively light Ju87 with its large dive brakes fully deployed would still accelerate eventually to its doom if it was left in that condition - so, just how much effectively would the tiny diveflap installed underneath wings help the P-38 in such a quantity that it would have "no problems in a dive"??
If the P-38 had no problems whatsoever during a dive with diveflaps deployed, then it simply means it was diving too slow - hence, as said, "of limited tactical value." If the P-38 would be able to waste the escaping enemy within the limits of Mach 0.7 then alls well that ends well. But if the dive contest lasts any longer, than frankly how would anyone be willing to deny the fact that the P-38, restrained due to its physical limits, simply could not cope with that situation, is beyond me.
I've not followed you for 3 years, but still immediately, a few problems I could spot right out from your analogy. The links you've provided was a great read, but nothing there suggests anything different from what I've or Hohun has said.
-
Hi Hilts,
>YOU seem to feel you are more qualified than they are, and YOU say it did not happen.
Bring me that 500 ft hole in the North German plain where the fight supposedly ended, and that story will look a lot more credible :-) Qualified - well, I live here, and I've never heard of such a hole (or anything approaching it).
>Funny, you seem to be the only one questioning their memory or their honesty.
So what? If you're unable to answer the question posed by a single man, that means his doubts are justified.
I'd tend to think their memory fails them, but if you mean to make it a question of their honesty - well, your idea entirely.
>YOU seem to think it is the defining factor in air to air combat and it ain't. That's where the problem is yours and not mine.
So you're confirming this is a case of HoHun vs. Hilts and not HoHun vs. The Veterans.
> Every plane has its weaknesses, and that does happen to be a big issue with the P-38, although it is one of few, and is really overstated and overemphasized.
I take that as admission that you were unable to find anything wrong with my original post which you attacked so vigerously.
You better give it another look then, as I'm not particularly fond of people who try to hide themselves behind the "honour of the veterans" for spin-doctoring purposes.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Just believe what you want to, it does not matter. Just remember a whole lot more Luftwaffe planes died in front of P-38's than P-38's died in front of Luftwaffe planes. Diving or not. Seems critical Mach wasn't the deciding factor you two seem to think it was. Evidently at least four times as many fights didn't end in a dive as did. Think about it. If you can out dive the P-38, you still have to go back up where he stopped and try again. With neither a speed nor an altitude advantage. If you can't climb up again and get the P-38 or the bombers, you lose. You figure it out.
Oh, and about the "roll over and follow him down" thing. To do a split S, you roll over and dive, that's how the maneuver works. If you are behind your enemy and setting him up for the kill, you don't need to roll over and dive away first, he does. So if he does, you have to "roll over and follow him down" (notice I didn't say roll over and THEN follow him down, meaning a delay was there, I didn't say it, you and/or Hohun made a pitiful attempt to put words in my mouth, one of you added the word THEN). That's how you pursue your enemy if he has to split S away to save his hide, from your supposedly inferior plane. Of course, if it is so inferior, how did it gain a superior position and advantage, and why do you have to resort to a desperate maneuver like a split S to save your hide? I never said a thing about "delayed" pursuit, now did I? In order to jolt you out of your fantasy, I'll answer that for you. NO, I did not.
Like the early Spitfire with the older carb, the first P-38's didn't follow the Germans through the negative G split S and dive. So for a while it was a valid tactic, if that inferior plane got position on you. Like the later Spitfire, the later P-38 could and did follow, and the tactic was no longer quite so valid.
The only people saying the dive flap on the P-38 was a brake are you and Hohun, I never said any such thing. That fact that either or both of you would like to believe I did does not matter.
The two of you continually confuse terminal velocity dives to critical Mach with a dive away from combat. They are not necessarily one and the same. They do not even have to be close. At the point where you NEED to pull a split S and dive away from a plane you seem to think you can out run, out turn, and out climb, that move will be a last ditch to save your slow and nearly helpless hide, not a move made from high speed and an advantageous position.
The ability to speed away in a high speed terminal dive is not some all conquering advantage. It is one facet of the whole picture of air to air combat. If that's the best advatage you have, well, ain't that just tough. If you can dive away, and you have to, it doesn't mean you won, it just means you didn't get shot to rags. You'll need a lot more advatage than that to be markedly superior. Especially when your opponents only two REAL disadvantages are his plane is a little bigger, and it won't go much over 500MPH in a dive. But then you knew that, didn't you. Otherwise you wouldn't be so hung up on critical Mach and terminal velocity dives.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>YOU seem to feel you are more qualified than they are, and YOU say it did not happen.
Bring me that 500 ft hole in the North German plain where the fight supposedly ended, and that story will look a lot more credible :-) Qualified - well, I live here, and I've never heard of such a hole (or anything approaching it).
>Funny, you seem to be the only one questioning their memory or their honesty.
So what? If you're unable to answer the question posed by a single man, that means his doubts are justified.
I'd tend to think their memory fails them, but if you mean to make it a question of their honesty - well, your idea entirely.
>YOU seem to think it is the defining factor in air to air combat and it ain't. That's where the problem is yours and not mine.
So you're confirming this is a case of HoHun vs. Hilts and not HoHun vs. The Veterans.
> Every plane has its weaknesses, and that does happen to be a big issue with the P-38, although it is one of few, and is really overstated and overemphasized.
I take that as admission that you were unable to find anything wrong with my original post which you attacked so vigerously.
You better give it another look then, as I'm not particularly fond of people who try to hide themselves behind the "honour of the veterans" for spin-doctoring purposes.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Well, I don't know about the hole in the ground, I'd call it a minor detail of the story, which the main focus of was air to air combat, not geographic features. I never claimed to be an expert on topography of German landscape.
As to whether their memory is faulty, I'd say that coming that close to death in a fight for your life would still remain a very vivid memory even 50 years after the fact.
No, actually, if the pilots said they could and did follow their enemy right on through a split S into a dive and catch them, and YOU say they didn't, and they couldn't, I'd say it is your word against theirs. Neither they nor I ever said they dove to 550MPH or .75 Mach. They said in combat they could follow their enemy right through his split S and dive right with him. Of course, if you happen to be so stupid as to think that absolutely positively MUST mean that they went from 250-300MPH instantly to 500+MPH --- critical Mach-- catastrophic unrecoverable compression, all in the space of 5 or even 15 seconds, then the problem is yours, and I don't share it.
I am not admitting I don't find anything wrong with your initial post, in fact, I've found plenty wrong with your post, you just choose to ignore it.
I really do not give a damn what you are particularly fond of Hohun, I don't care what you think at all. Don't give yourself so much credit, in the grand scheme of things your opinion is worth all of, well, not a damned thing. You can spin it any way you please, or you can stick it where the sun does not shine. Get over yourself.
-
I think it is you who need to get over yourself ”Captain”, and the fact that the P-38 wasn’t the superplane you want it to be. Kill statistics doesn’t mean anything unless skill and force levels are equal. The kill statistics in late 1944 and 1945 is equally useless as the kill statistics from Poland in 1939 and the beginning of operation Barbarossa where the LW decimated their opponents. In Africa the LW initially had the initiative, but lost it to the superior number of RAF and USAAF aircraft. What you are left with are the performance facts of each aircraft, and historical fact. The LW could engage and disengage the P-38 at will. An advantage they lost when the P-51 entered the war in numbers. The Bf109 shot down more than twice the number of aircraft than any other plane in history … does that mean that the 109 was twice as good as any other fighter in history? Of course not.
I think I know HiTech’s dedication to accuracy well enough to say that your Super Lightning will never be made in AH … and of course you don’t know how to fly the P-38 in AH as it is since you keep whining about “death spirals” and unrecoverable spins. Perhaps the problem is not the plane, but the man who’s flying it? … just like it was in real life.
-
Hi Hilts,
>No, actually, if the pilots said they could and did follow their enemy right on through a split S into a dive and catch them, and YOU say they didn't, and they couldn't, I'd say it is your word against theirs.
You are a liar, Hilts.
You either come up with a direct, unambigous quote proving your claim, or I'll report the next post where you make an unfounded claim like that to the moderation of this forum, complete with a request to take action against you.
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
G, those quotes you posted, they are all about new squads getting hosed. How about some quotes from 38 squads that were veterans? I for one would like to see them.
Thanks.
Why don’t you find some quotes? If you can find them (I’m sure you can). The fact still remains that the P-38’s service was unsatisfactory and was largely withdrawn from fighter service in the ETO when the P-51 became available in numbers. Comparing LW losses in Africa (which include bombers, Bf110 Jabo’s and transports) to P-38 losses is meaningless.
Fact is that the P-38 and I dare say ALL other aircraft modelled are “easy mode” compared to real life. The P-38 had some serious vices that are not modelled, and the same goes for the 109, 190, P-51, Spitfire etc. AH is pretty accurate and realistic for a game, but it is still just a game.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why don’t you find some quotes? If you can find them (I’m sure you can).
Ouch. I was just hoping with your vast amount of anecdotal and data facts that you could post some rather quickly. I was not meaning anything argumentative or debatable about my request. Since you seem to have taken it the wrong way I retract my request, as small as it was, and will leave this debate to the "experts" who seem to be taking it way too personally.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>No, actually, if the pilots said they could and did follow their enemy right on through a split S into a dive and catch them, and YOU say they didn't, and they couldn't, I'd say it is your word against theirs.
You are a liar, Hilts.
You either come up with a direct, unambigous quote proving your claim, or I'll report the next post where you make an unfounded claim like that to the moderation of this forum, complete with a request to take action against you.
Henning (HoHun)
Do it Hohun, run tell your mommy. I'm sure they'll get all bent over it.
(note: The above statement is in no way a sign of a lack of respect for Skuzzy. But I really doubt Skuzzy would need me to say that, I'm sure he actually understands quite well what I meant. I think it would be rather sad and pitiful for someone to go and complain to Skuzzy over this thread.)
Oh, and while you are at it Hohun, here:
"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better." (cited from [8] with permission from Arthur W. Heiden).
Now, go ahead and call Captain Arthur Heiden, pilot of "Lucky Lady" of the 79TH FS of the 20TH FG a liar. Go ahead, I don't care anymore Hohun, I really don't. And go report me to the moderator, ooooh ooooh, I'm so scared.
(see note above)
Now we see who the liar is. If you can't handle the truth from a fighter pilot who was there, well ain't that just tough.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I remember seeing or reading an anecdote by a 38 pilot that claimed he could turn inside *any* LW plane by simply cutting the throttle to the engine on the side he was turning into. I will look for this source and post it but I remember him saying that in the right hands the 38 was more than a match for LW iron.
G, those quotes you posted, they are all about new squads getting hosed. How about some quotes from 38 squads that were veterans? I for one would like to see them.
Thanks.
This is all I have time for bud, don't wait around for them to tell you the truth and find quotes from BOTH sides, you'll be long dead before it happens. But here you go, from an article by Dr. Carlo Kopp, written with help from two guys I know who were P-38 pilots: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html
See also those sites listed above. Those are almost all run by the associations of their respective groups and squadrons. With quotes from their pilots and leaders, and lists of their aces.
Of course, do not be at all surprised if you hear that they were liars, and nothing you read on the Internet can be trusted.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The fact still remains that the P-38’s service was unsatisfactory and was largely withdrawn from fighter service in the ETO when the P-51 became available in numbers.
There is probably some other reasons like cost and maintenance.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ouch. I was just hoping with your vast amount of anecdotal and data facts that you could post some rather quickly. I was not meaning anything argumentative or debatable about my request. Since you seem to have taken it the wrong way I retract my request, as small as it was, and will leave this debate to the "experts" who seem to be taking it way too personally.
Don't be surprised by this, it is the normal response. See the post above where I replied to your request. It is all there, you just have to do a little research. Look to those websites I posted earlier as well.
-
Originally posted by straffo
There is probably some other reasons like cost and maintenance.
Exactly. The P-38 cost $125K each. They required about 30% more maintenance. They required a completely different set of supplies. They required completely seperate training. They were VERY hard to get as only Lockheed was making them, and only in one plant which was over half devoted to B-17 production. Units elsewhere were begging for them. The 8TH AF until the time Doolittle took over had no idea what to do with long range fighter aircraft. The results of the inadequacies of the 8TH AF staff officers and leadership was blamed on the P-38.
The 5TH AF wanted all the P-38s they could get, since the P-38 was being properly used there to kill more Japanese planes than all other fighter aircraft in the theatre. They knew how to use the P-38 and how to run an Air Force. Pilots there were racking up kills at an astounding rate. Pilots who came from the European theatre for the most part said the Japanese were a more dangerous foe than the germans.
-
Look at the performance numbers and pilot reports from those who flew the P-38 and you may find it is not overmodeled, nor is it in the "easy mode".
It was remarkably stable, to a fault if you consider how hard it was to get it to roll at times. It had the best manners of any fighter simply because it had two engines and two props that rotated in opposite directions like huge gyroscopic stabilizers. It had a high aspect ratio wing and Fowler flaps for lift and handling. It had a combined HP of over 3200, spread through two props for better utilization of available power. It had turbochargers to retain maximum performance from sea level to well over 30K feet. It concentrated its gunfire in a 30" circle from 1 foot to more than 1500 feet from the muzzles. It had a hard hitting 20mm cannon with 150 rounds, and four 50 BMGs with 500 rounds each. It had great acceleration in level flight and in a dive, a relatively high top speed, an excellent climb rate, excellent range, good handling at both low and high speeds, especially later models with hydraulic assist ailerons and dive flaps.
On the otherhand, it could not get much over 500 MPH in a dive, and it was very hard to handle in a dive at higher speeds and altitudes. It had very poor cockpit heating. Early models had poor intercoolers and weak electrical systems, amnd not as much internal fuel capacity. It was very complex and had nearly double the controls for the engines and props. The fuel system was difficult to manage unless you looked right at the switches, and even then they were hard to operate with gloves on. The engines had little if any automatic management, at least in the early models. It required special training to get the most power and the most fuel efficiency, not to mention the best handling. It had pooor visibility compared to many fighters.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ouch. I was just hoping with your vast amount of anecdotal and data facts that you could post some rather quickly. I was not meaning anything argumentative or debatable about my request. Since you seem to have taken it the wrong way I retract my request, as small as it was, and will leave this debate to the "experts" who seem to be taking it way too personally.
I did not mean to insult you in any way, I apologize if I did. :confused:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I did not mean to insult you in any way, I apologize if I did. :confused:
Very big of you to apologize to him Scholz. I can respect that.
-
This has begun to take far too much of my time. I've far better things to do. I'm wasting time here I could spend flying and improving my woefully inadequate skills and talents. You guys can have it. No amount of arguement will change anyone's position.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Look at the performance numbers and pilot reports from those who flew the P-38 and you may find it is not overmodeled, nor is it in the "easy mode".
EVERY plane in AH is "easy mode" compared to the real thing. If you don't understand that then you are beyond reason. NONE of the P-38's nasty compressibility problems are modelled, you don't really need the dive brake in AH since you can trim all planes out of compressed dives. In AH the only thing that happens is that the controls stiffen up. In real life it was a lot worse:
Compressibility occurs when the P-38 entered dives stated above 20,000 ft. The airflow would be "splashed" over the leading edge of the wing instead of the usual smooth airflow. The splashed air would approach the sound barrier (not the aircraft itself, but rather the speed of the air flowing over the wing), thus causing a shockwave effect on the trailing edge. This would render the controls inoperable, leaving the pilot without any control of the aircraft. Two possibilities would then ensue. Either the aircraft would slow as it descended into denser air closer to the ground and the pilot would regain control and pull out of the dive. Or in some cases, the P-38 would simply disintegrate. Many pilots would lose their lives when they inadvertently entered a steep dive, or when performing dive tests.
Tony Levier described compressibility as, "It resembled a giant phantom hand that seized the plane and sometimes shook it out of the pilot's control." George Gray wrote in a history of the NACA, "The behavior was new to pilots, terrifying, baffling. Several men, in putting this two-engine fighter through its diving maneuvers, underwent the experience: A sudden violent buffeting of the tail accompanied by a lunging and threshing about of the place, as though it were trying to free itself on invisible bonds, and then the maddening immobility of the controls, the refusal of the elevators to respond to the stick." Use of elevator trim would sometimes bring the P-38 out of a dive before destruction. Sometimes the P-38 would begin to tuck under and begin to come out of the dive upside-down. Levels of stress on the airframe were staggering.
Would you like this behaviour modelled if you forget to deploy your dive brakes? Didn't think so.
And the link you posted corroborates my point of view that the P-38 was unsuited for operation in the ETO and was unsuccessful in the fighter role:
With a large proportion of Pacific and Med P-38 operations flown at medium to low altitudes, Lockheed and Allison had little operational experience with the aircraft at high altitude and low ambients and this was quickly revealed. The Allisons misbehaved quite consistently, 'throwing rods, swallowing valves and fouling plugs' while the intercoolers often ruptured under sustained high boost, and turbocharger regulators froze at 10 in. or 80 in. of boost, the latter often resulting in catastrophic failures. Even with the arrival of the P-38J, engines and turbochargers continued to fail. The new intercooler/oil cooler design was actually too efficient and the enlarged radiators became a new problem. Fuel too, was a source of trouble, it is believed by many knowledgeable people that the majority of fuel used in Britain was improperly blended, the anti-knock lead compounds coming out of solution (separating) in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. This could lead to detonation and rapid engine failure, especially at the higher power settings demanded for combat.
To aggravate these problems, inadequate cockpit heating resulted in severe pilot frostbite, while the Luftwaffe quickly learned about the compressibility problems in dives, with German pilots evading the P-38s by executing a split-S at high speed. The initial roll rate was not spectacular and the easily recognized planform provided the Luftwaffe with yet another advantage to play.
Poor serviceability and engine problems meant that initially 50 or less aircraft were available for such missions, including the first escorts over Berlin, and therefore the 55th and later also 20th FG usually fought the JGs outnumbered between three to one and five to one, as noted previously. The large number of engine failures deep inside enemy airspace exacerbated the problem, and the aggregate exchange rate, accidents inclusive, dropped to about 1:1.5 in favour of the Lightning by 1944. Aircrew morale dropped, moreso due to the large number of single engine landing accidents, thus further damaging the aircraft's reputation. The technical problems were not resolved until the introduction of the P-38J-25-LO, by which time the 8th had decided that the new Merlin powered P-51B/C was a better choice for the mission.
The LW fighters could disengage at will, and a 1:1.5 loss ratio against the LW when they were concentrating on the bombers ... not very impressive compared to the P-47 and P-51.
Despite these difficulties the 55th did well on a number of sorties during this period. On the 3rd November, 1943, the 55th in concert with the experienced 4th, 56th and 78th FGs clashed with the elite JG 1. The 55th accounted for 7 Luftwaffe fighters of the 13 claimed. On the 25th November, 1943, 4 FW-190s were claimed for the loss of one P-38H, one of the Focke-Wulfs belonging to Major J. Seifert (an "expert" with 57 kills), Gruppenkommandeur of II/JG26. Other sorties were much less successful, and heavy losses were suffered on a number of occasions.
Of course there are pilot quotes like these:
"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better."
"The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster. The dive recovery flaps ameliorated the "compressibility" (Mach limitation) of earlier Lightnings. An added benefit of the dive recovery flaps was their ability to pitch the nose 10-20 degrees "up" momentarily when trying to out turn the Luftwaffe's best, even when using the flap combat position on the selector. Of course the nose "pitch-up" resulted in increased aerodynamic drag, and must be used cautiously. High speed is generally preferred over low speed in combat situations. Properly flown, the Fowler flaps of the P-38 allowed very tight turning radius."
Rather nice quotes from pilots who obviously liked the P-38L, however the " You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better" and the "Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster" should be taken as enthusiastic boasting common to all pilots.
This quote is far more telling of the P-38 experience in the ETO:
"The P-38 was a large fighter with much mass. 52' wingspan and long, wide-chord ailerons contributed to slow response along the longitudinal axis of the early airplanes. The higher the indicated airspeed, the slower the response. At very high IAS it took plenty of muscle to roll the airplane. I don't believe that a joystick would have improved matters over the wheel. The Luftwaffe soon recognized the slow roll rate of the "H" and early "J" model Lightnings and used it to their advantage. It also learned of the dive restrictions caused by "compressibility" and used that advantage also.
Sometime in the development of the P-38, the design engineers must have realized that P-38's didn't have great roll capability. When Tony Levier, Lockheed test pilot, visited the 55th FG, he heard a common thread of complaints from the pilots. Cold cockpit, poor "flick" roll rate, and inability to dive after the Bf-109's and FW-190's from high altitude.
The P-38L did not enter service until June 1944. At that time the LW had long since lost the air war and apart from a few Experten, fielded nothing but inexperienced pilots whom were facing daunting numerical odds. Any statistics from this period of the war is more or less useless. Anecdotal evidence from the few LW pilots that survived the war suggests that they had little problem with the P-38 and P-47 ... it was the P-51 they had trouble beating.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
This has begun to take far too much of my time. I've far better things to do. I'm wasting time here I could spend flying and improving my woefully inadequate skills and talents. You guys can have it. No amount of arguement will change anyone's position.
Doh! So I've written all this for nothing? ;)
I'm sure your skills will improve to the point of loving the AH P-38 as much as you love the real (or perceived real ;)) one. Ask Ack-Ack to let you in on his secrets ... on second thought don't! Having one Ack-Ack in the MA is enough for me to get jumpy when I see a knit 38. Good luck in the MA.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
How about some quotes from 38 squads that were veterans? I for one would like to see them.
Originally posted by GScholz
Why don’t you find some quotes? If you can find them (I’m sure you can).
I see now how this could be interpreted as an insult. I did not mean to imply that you are incapable of finding quotes. I meant that it perhaps would be difficult to find quotes from P-38 veterans from that time in the war. My English is sometimes not as good as I'd like it to be. I'm sorry for the ambiguity of my post.
-
If this link has not been posted already, it is well worth the read.
http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
-
In RL high altitue fighting wasn't so spectacular. Almost all the accounts I've read (apart from very rare 1on1 fights) describe "dweebish" flying with almost no ACM involved save the "split-S and dive".
Up high, climb-rate is near useless while diving ability is almost everything - this is the biggest problem the 38s faced, and the dive-flaps didn't help a lot. It did help by allowing pilots to dive the 38 safly untill hitting the edge of the envelop AND pull out of the dive. With out this confidence I'm sure most of them didn't exploit the (limited) dive ability to it's fullest. L model or not, this was always the greatest disadvantage.
on the other hand, mid-low altitudes, there's not much room for dives and a great use for climbs. The 38 could really excell there and did. Plus, it's range often made it the only usable plane (PTO).
It simply wasn't a high alt plane and not fit for high alt bomber escort. But it was the only option for a long time.
this is my OPINION of the matter.
Bozon
-
One must remember that a diving LW a/c is out of the 'fight'. There was no fuel left for making another attempted attack by the LW fighters. The P-38s had to stay with the bombers so forcing the LW to dive away saved the bombers.
-
The cockpit heating problem was taken care of on the P-38L, the definitive
Lightning, which made up about half the production run. But that didn't
help pilots in the ETO or MTO in 1943 and early 1944. There were many
cases of pilots being forced to abort mission because their hands and feet
were frostbitten.
One problem the P-38 had in dealing with the Me-109, but not the FW-190
(which was more of a low and mid-altitude fighter) was the Me's high
altitude performace superiority. Above 25,000 ft., cooling or
supercharger impeller or turbine speeds became limiting for the Lockheed,
and high speed capability started to fall off. At low altitudes, the
plane could max out at about 330-340 mph. This rose to well above 400 mph
between 25,000 to 30,000. As the plane approached 30,000 ft, speeds over
Mach 0.60 could be sustained in level flight. Thus, manuevering could
quickly give the plane compressibility problems. At Mach 0.65 (290 mph
IAS, 440 mph TAS at 30,000 ft.; 360 mph IAS, 460 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.)
drag began to soar as the plane began to encounter compressibility. At
Mach 0.67 shock waves began forming and buffeting began at Mach 0.675. At
Mach 0.74 tuck under began. Buffeting developed at a lower Mach number in
any maneuver exceeding 1 g.
What this meant to a pilot in combat in say, a P-38H such as that used by
the 55FG or 20FG circa Jan. '44, was that if, at high altitude such as
Me-109s preferred approaching bomber formations, he locked on to the e/a
and it split-S'ed and dove away (typical Luftwaffe evasive maneuver), if
he attempted to follow, his P-38 would start to vibrate, then start
bucking like a rodeo bronco, the control column would begin flail back and
forth so forcefully it would probably be ripped out of his hands and begin
pounding him to crap. Once the plane dropped down to lower altitude where
the speed of sound was higher, the buffeting declined and the trim tab
could be used to haul the airplane out of what seemed to be a death dive.
Recovery with trim tab resulted in 5 g pull-out. Many a low-time service
pilot would be so shaken by this experience that he would never dive the
P-38 again, and might be so afraid of the airplane that his usefullness as
a fighter pilot was over.
The late J and L models solved this problem with the installation of a
dive flap. Extend the flaps at the beginning of a dive and all problems
were eliminated. Again, these models weren't available in the critical
period between fall 1943 and spring 1944 when the most desperate battles
against the Luftwaffe took place, and when the P-38s rep in Europe was
established.
The reason P-38s were as successful as they were in Europe (and it should
be kept in mind they performed their escort role before it was decided to
free the fighters from the bombers to seek out e/a on favorable terms so
they were always forced to engage on unfavorable terms) was at least in
part because they were wonderful aerobatic airplanes with absolutely no
maneuvers restricted except the dive. Loops, Immelmans, slow and snap
rolls, Cuban eights...it could perform them all with perfection. It had a
wonderful ability to perform in the vertical, with an excellent rate of
climb, splendid zoom climb. It could easily change direction while
executing vertical maneuvers. It was also a very stable gun platform,
being stable and very smooth while executing maneuvers.
In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This
began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result).
The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise
was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get
very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if
speeds over 400 mph were anticipated. However, in high speed dives, the
plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the
pilot's head was slammed against the canopy. Depending on how much fuel
was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a
real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving
earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer.
The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight
routines. A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its
flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and
pulling and kicking to get it to move its ass.) It was important to burn
down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity.
Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean
instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose
the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to
prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high
speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off.
Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g
forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the
stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a
wing-buster.
None of these vices are modelled in AH, and there are hardly a plane without such "quirks". At least some 109's had a problem with aileron overbalance at high speed; at least some 190's suffered from aileron reversal in tight left-hand turns; at least some Spitfires suffered from aileron reversal at high speeds etc. etc. etc.
AH is "easy mode" compared to real life, and no one should expect these simulated airplanes to behave exactly like the real thing. Airlines and the military pay millions for advanced simulators, and even they don't always get everything right. There are simply too many variables in real life to expect a lowly desktop PC to accurately simulate everything.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I see now how this could be interpreted as an insult. I did not mean to imply that you are incapable of finding quotes. I meant that it perhaps would be difficult to find quotes from P-38 veterans from that time in the war. My English is sometimes not as good as I'd like it to be. I'm sorry for the ambiguity of my post.
Hey, no problem G-man. Sometimes these things happen on BBS's. When I wrote my post about asking for more quotes I was about 2 mins. from going to bed therefore I wasn't about to do a net search on quotes at that time.
About your English, it's better than 90% of primary English-speaking people on this board.
The question about the 38's capability has always been very interesting to me. I found that book that I remembered and read the chapter before going to sleep. It turns out the author was a WWII 38 pilot that had found if he dialed in some rudder input just BEFORE a turn he could get the plane to roll a bit faster than normal. He also talked about how he could power climb in a turn and 190's couldn't keep up with him. That's where I got my memories crossed about that the 38 could and could not do against the LW iron.
I've also wondered about the 51 in AH when in WWII it seemed from pilots stories it was untouchable. Yet, it has earned a reputation in AH as a "runner" thus the Runstang name. I still haven't figured out why it is like this in the game.
But that is another thread altogether....
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
About your English, it's better than 90% of primary English-speaking people on this board.
Thank you. :)
Originally posted by DiabloTX
The question about the 38's capability has always been very interesting to me. I found that book that I remembered and read the chapter before going to sleep. It turns out the author was a WWII 38 pilot that had found if he dialed in some rudder input just BEFORE a turn he could get the plane to roll a bit faster than normal. He also talked about how he could power climb in a turn and 190's couldn't keep up with him. That's where I got my memories crossed about that the 38 could and could not do against the LW iron.
The 190's advantage would be roll rate, speed and dive. Climb, zoom and maneuverability would be the 38's advantage. The 109 would hold all advantages except for maneuverability, and about equality in zoom (109 has more power in the climb, but the P-38 has more stability near the top of the zoom climb). In AH the 38 is not as bad in a dive as I'm led to believe from what I've read, so the LW dive advantage (especially against the 109) is less pronounced.
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I've also wondered about the 51 in AH when in WWII it seemed from pilots stories it was untouchable. Yet, it has earned a reputation in AH as a "runner" thus the Runstang name. I still haven't figured out why it is like this in the game.
Well, the P-51 wasn't untouchable ... quite a lot of them got shot down. However they were great runners, and excellent E fighters. In WWII all but a few pilots would rather live to fight another day than push a bad situation, so most engagements would end up with one side trying to disengage. Just like with the P-38 stories posted in this thread where the 109's would try to get an advantage in altitude and bounce the escorting P-38's. Failing that they would just dive away and run. The P-51's did the same thing to the Germans. So the same qualities that earned the P-51 the "runner" tag in AH, earned the P-51 the "untouchable" tag in WWII ... because they are the same. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
My English is sometimes not as good as I'd like it to be. I'm sorry for the ambiguity of my post.
You are far, FAR too modest GScholz. I'm not a native English speaker myself but people always compliment me on the grasp I have of the language. If you wouldn't have stated it, I never would have guessed. In fact your English is considerably better than some of the Americans who regularly post here. Furthermore, saying that your English is not good enough while simultanously using words like 'ambiguous' is not really convincing ;)
-
Hi Hilts,
>Do it Hohun, run tell your mommy. I'm sure they'll get all bent over it.
Publication of statements with no factual basis (or based on a lie) that are fit to damage someone's reputation are a criminal offence under German law.
If you had posted your stuff on a German board, you'd be eligible for a one-year prison sentence now, and I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney.
The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this.
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
You are far, FAR too modest GScholz. I'm not a native English speaker myself but people always compliment me on the grasp I have of the language. If you wouldn't have stated it, I never would have guessed. In fact your English is considerably better than some of the Americans who regularly post here. Furthermore, saying that your English is not good enough while simultanously using words like 'ambiguous' is not really convincing ;)
Thank you for the compliment, your English is excellent also. :)
However, I do occasionally goof-off and write something stupid only to be dumbfounded by the angry replies. Rather embarrassing really ... like this time.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why don’t you find some quotes? If you can find them (I’m sure you can). The fact still remains that the P-38’s service was unsatisfactory and was largely withdrawn from fighter service in the ETO when the P-51 became available in numbers. Comparing LW losses in Africa (which include bombers, Bf110 Jabo’s and transports) to P-38 losses is meaningless.
Fact is that the P-38 and I dare say ALL other aircraft modelled are “easy mode” compared to real life. The P-38 had some serious vices that are not modelled, and the same goes for the 109, 190, P-51, Spitfire etc. AH is pretty accurate and realistic for a game, but it is still just a game.
Not a fair assessment GScholz. There is enough evidence around that the 'politics'within 8th AF early on had a lot to do with the 38 being shipped to Africa. The bomber guys had something to prove, and had to backpeddle like crazy when the bomber losses got so bad and the need for a long range fighter escort was finally acknowledged.
Certainly the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs used the 38 well until the end of the war flying out of Italy. The 474th FG 9th AF requested to stay on 38s instead of transitioning to P47s as they preferred them. The 370th FG certainly employed them successfully as well with the 9th AF. I think it would be hard to find fault with the 8th AF groups that used it such as the 20th, 55th and 479th.
I have a copy of the 436th FS, 479th FG wartime history. This would be what was written daily while the war was going on. There are some interesting comments about the transition to the 51 from the 38. One is that the replacement pilots were P51 trained so they didn't have the experience in the 38. Another, and I'll quote it, regards the oldtimers finishing their tours:
"The first pilot to finish his missions this month was Lt. Herman Hoversten, strictly a P38 boy with an intense dislike for the P51 Spam can".
Those who flew it, liked it and often preferred it, even to the 51. But lets face it, you could produce a lot more 51s faster and it was less of a maintenence headache. It made sense to use the 51.
Dig out the histories of the 1st, 14th and 82nd. They don't bash the 38 but employed it very successfully. I talk to a 1st FG 38 pilot on occasion. He is the first to admit the cockpit was way too cold. They'd wrap copies of Yank or other magazines around thier legs to help with the cold. Yet they were more then happy to go up to England to get the 8th AF cast off 38s. And there were definately 51s in the MTO too.
To say it was unsatisfactory in its operations against the LW is unfair and untrue.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by HoHun
If you had posted your stuff on a German board, you'd be eligible for a one-year prison sentence now, and I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney.
The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this.
Henning (HoHun)
You are joking right? This is the USA and this thread is nothing that the "moderator" is going to waste his time on. And I highly doubt that anything said in this thread would be touched by a German DA.
If you are going to argue on this board then you will have to get some thicker armor.
-
i can't say much about the real thing, but...
in AH you ALLLLLLLL suck no matter what you're in.
:D
-
A couple of notes on some of this.
The P-38 was not withdrawn from service against the Luftwaffe. One AF, the 8TH AF, transitioned their units equipped with P-38s to the P-51, but not before mid to late summer of 1944. Everyone knows what condition the Luftwaffe was in by June of 1944. The P-38 outnumbered the P-51 in numbers deployed with the 8TH AF until mid to late April of 1944.
The P-38 was the first Allied fighter to appear in numbers over Berlin. And it turned out to be a fighter sweep mission since every other unit including all of the bombers turned back due to weather.
The introduction of the P-38 as a long range escort immediately cut bomber losses dramatically, despite the fact that the P-38 was flown by units forced to go operational 60 to 90 days ahead of schedule, with no experience, deep in enemy territory, facing numerical disadvantages of up to 20:1. Hardly the indictment of inferiority you portray.
Other Air Forces deployed against the Luftwaffe kept their P-38's, right up until VE day, and used them very successfully against the Luftwaffe.
The fact that the rest of the USAAC in action against the Luftwaffe successfully used the P-38 against the Luftwaffe while the 8TH could not seem to do anything right should tell you something.
The fact that the P-38 had by all accounts a kill:loss ratio against the Luftwaffe of somewhere between 4 and 6 to 1 in combat should speak for itself.
The 1.5:1 statistic includes ALL losses of P-38's compared to enemy planes destroyed in action. For the P-38 that includes all planes lost to accidents, navigation errors, mechanical failures, collisions with friendly aircraft, and any other non combat loss as well as combat losses, while for the Luftwaffe that only includes planes confirmed as shot down by P-38's. Hardly a fair and reasonable comparison is it? Include all of the same losses for the Luftwaffe and see how the numbers stack up. Bet they'll be VERY different.
Even as poorly as the 8TH AF did with the P-38, they did produce a great number of aces in the P-38. And several Luftwaffe top guns were shot down by P-38's. Are we to assume that those P-38 aces were superhuman pilots able to take a plane you say was so totally inferior to anything the Luftwaffe had and become aces with it? Are we to assume that those Luftwaffe top guns were actually so incompetent as to allow themselves to be shot down by what you consider the worst plane in the theatre?
Judging the P-38 by the performance of the 8TH AF while completely ignoring every other AF fighting the Luftwaffe is like judging the Luftwaffe by their action against the Polish air force and ignoring the rest of the Allies. It is a rather poor way to find the truth.
-
Even as poorly as the 8TH AF did with the P-38, they did produce a great number of aces in the P-38. And several Luftwaffe top guns were shot down by P-38's. Are we to assume that those P-38 aces were superhuman pilots able to take a plane you say was so totally inferior to anything the Luftwaffe had and become aces with it? Are we to assume that those Luftwaffe top guns were actually so incompetent as to allow themselves to be shot down by what you consider the worst plane in the theatre?
Out of curiosity, to whom is the above statement addressed to? Because I sure don't see anyone claiming the P-38 was the worst fighter in the ETO, nor do I see anyone saying skillful feats are impossible to achieve with a P-38... not to mention none of what you've said ever relates to the previous debate concerning the lacking aspects of the P-38.
Your putting words inside the mouth of a phantom which we cannot see.
-
Wow, you folks make quite the soap opera :D
I should point my Mother to these boards instead of "As the world turns"
:rofl
-
*Sigh*
Hilts, you know, if you search this forum I'm sure you'll find out that I was like you the first couple of months I was here. Different plane, but same sentiment. Your "version" of the P-38 will never be modelled since HTC model their planes after facts ... not wishful thinking. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll enjoy flying your P-38 in AH.
-
Aye. The 38 as it is presently is one of the best fighters in the game. It just doesn't fly like single engined fighters and has a particularly long learning curve. People just starting out in it are bound to get ganked repeatedly, even if they are already proficient pilots in other aircraft. But having put enough combat hours in to develop a certain level of mastery, the 38 is a match for anything and anyone in the arena. It's good enough as is.
-
The p38 is good and outturns lw fighters so there goes ur point.
GScholz
yeah the AH model is almost perfect
:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*Sigh*
Hilts, you know, if you search this forum I'm sure you'll find out that I was like you the first couple of months I was here. Different plane, but same sentiment. Your "version" of the P-38 will never be modelled since HTC model their planes after facts ... not wishful thinking. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll enjoy flying your P-38 in AH.
I've been here a lot longer than a couple of months. I just don't post that much.
I don't get what "version" you're talking about. You are quite confused. I never said I didn't enjoy flying the P-38 here. Even as bad as I am, I still enjoy it.
Do I see certain problems exist with the P-38 as modeled here? Yes. Do I spend every waking moment continually whining about it? No. In fact, I don't remember the last time I even started a thread about the P-38. I drop in on threads others start regularly.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Out of curiosity, to whom is the above statement addressed to? Because I sure don't see anyone claiming the P-38 was the worst fighter in the ETO, nor do I see anyone saying skillful feats are impossible to achieve with a P-38... not to mention none of what you've said ever relates to the previous debate concerning the lacking aspects of the P-38.
Your putting words inside the mouth of a phantom which we cannot see.
Because you chose that one quote and took it out of the context of the entire rest of the post, I'll just address that one question.
If you look throughout this thread, you'll note several instances where Sholz stated his contention that the P-38 was withdrawn from service because of what amounted to woefully inadequate performance against the Luftwaffe. I disagree completely.
I'll just leave it at that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The P-38 did not fare well in the ETO because the LW fighters were faster, better divers and better climbers. The P-38 is a wonderful plane, and showed its usefulness in the PTO against the slower Japanese planes, but in the ETO it was out of its league as a fighter. It did however find use in other niches like fighter-bomber and recce duty.
There were a few reasons why the P-38 didn't succeed in the ETO but none of them were because it was out classed by any German plane. If that was the case, it wouldn't have been as successful as it was in the MTO.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*Sigh*
Hilts, you know, if you search this forum I'm sure you'll find out that I was like you the first couple of months I was here. Different plane, but same sentiment. Your "version" of the P-38 will never be modelled since HTC model their planes after facts ... not wishful thinking. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll enjoy flying your P-38 in AH.
what fact was the auto-flaps based on?
ack-ack
-
That's an entirely different case, Ak.
-
Careful Ack-Ack, those Luftwaffles get real upset when they perceive an insult directed toward Willy or Kurt. They willl then proceed to draw a hidden microfilm from their rectum filled with never before released footage or diagrams.
-
Let's not turn this into one of those threads with the "Luftwobble" accusations. I think they are wrong, but I see no need to start that crap.
Sholz, the only Luftwaffe fighter that actually outclassed the P-38 was the Me 262, and well, as a jet, it should have. And it outclassed the rest of the prop fighters as well, so that is not an apples to apples comparison.
Auto retract is a problem, and I don't like it. Is it a show stopper? No. Is it wrong, annoying, and bothersome? YES. Should it be changed? I think so.
My contention regarding compression is that it is significantly more of a problem below 20K than actual combat pilots said it was, in the P-38L. Further, regarding the effects of compression at high altitude affecting maneuvers in excess of 1G, I really have not heard any complaints by actual pilots who flew it in combat. Possibly because the majority of them used the dive flaps even when they were not diving. A lot of pilots used them to get up or around a little quicker in a fight when they weren't diving. I would never suggest, nor would I want the P-38 to be able to dive at 600MPH from 30K, that is absurd. The plane had a fairly serious vice, and I want it to have that vice here. I most certainly would NOT want it any other way. I despise "easy mode", "uber planes", and "over modeled planes". I would be very unhappy if that were to happen to the P-38. A great measure of respect is lost when a plane turns into something beyond the realm of reality. I'd hate for the P-38 to turn into a dweeb ride. part of what makes it cool is not everyone can fly it. Evidently at times I can't fly it either. :D
I think the tail section is too soft and too easy to hit. However, I think the softness is a hiccup built in to the AH I damage model. The ease with which it is damaged and knocked off by shots fired from any direction, especially head on, is far outside what happened in real life. I don't think I can cite more than MAYBE one instance where combat damage took the entire tail off of a P-38 in combat from gunfire. It will literally bend 30 degrees or more from G forces exceeding 9 G in a dive and not come off, it would be VERY difficult to blow it off with guns. Also, the tail booms present a very small target area with a significant distance between them compared to a single engine single fuselage fighter. I think the easy hits on the tail booms is a problem with the hit profile, possibly because it may model the tail section as being one solid piece. I am pretty sure the tail coming off is just due to the limits built into the AH I damage model.
I'm sure the P-38L is too slow, but that is because the USAAC never actually recorded data for performance at War Emergency Power for the significantly more powerful engines in the P-38L. All data I've seen shows the tests to have been done at 100% Military power, and the speed to be the same as the P-38J-5-Lo at War Emergency Power. The P-38L-5-Lo had in excess of 600HP more than the P-38J-5-Lo at War Emergency Power. To think this would not increase speed at all altitudes is a rather bizarre assumption. A 20% increase in horsepower would result in a significant increase in speed. However, I really do not hold HTC to be at fault here because the USAAC did not test and record at that power level. Other sources have, and state the top speed of the P-38L-5-Lo to be 442MPH at around 29,000 feet. I think Widewing has this data, and I also believe it was in Bodie's book on the P-38, which is considered to be by far the most accurate on the subject. Verification for the power ratings can be found in both "Vee's for Victory" and "Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II". Even without the top speed at high altitude, the horsepower increase that is not modeled would result in significant improvement in both climb and acceleration, and speeds at low altitude. Again, I doubt it will be changed, and I don't really think HTC is at fault, but rather the USAAC is because they did not do the testing and as such did not record any data. However, the data for the horsepower increase over the P-38J is readily available, as is speed and climb testing at War Emergency Power for the P-38J.
I don't whine about this, I don't think I've ever even started a thread about how it is modeled, although I may have several years ago, but I will freely admit that I often drop in on threads others have started and state the information I've repeated here. I do not expect to see any changes regarding what I've posted, even though I do plan to submit some of the factual recorded data to HTC when I have my books replaced and I can actually redo my old research myself. I certainly don't expect any changes to be made on the basis of anecdotal evidence from the experience of combat pilots, I just state it in many cases to make the point of what real P-38 combat pilots shared as their experiences. After all, that is the point of AH for me. I've had the wonderful blessing of getting to know some remarkable men who flew the planes in combat, and my desire to experience what they did, as close as a computer will get me, is my driving force.
Oh, and by the way Sholz, I did experience a death spiral last night and get it on film. :eek: It is however on a film that lasts over 1.5 hours, and I have not had time to watch it and analyze it. I will watch it, and if I find out I did something wrong, I'll tell you EXACTLY how I screwed up. I may have. If I did not, I'll edit it down to the last part of the film with a couple of minutes before the stall, and the resulting death spiral and crash.
I'll tell you what I think happened as I remember it without seeing the film. I was climbing up really hard after an La 7 trying to get the shot. My speed bled down to about 110 knots as I headed straight up, I think I had both the dive flaps out and the Fowler flaps fully deployed. As I reached the stall at about 110 pulled straight up, it nosed/rolled over, and I could not get the counterclockwise spin stopped and spun in. It was not a flat spin, but rather nose down. I don'tthink I cut the throttles, but again, with zero torque throttle setting should not add to or detract from a spin in the P-38.
Like I said, if I see where I screwed up, I'll tell you that, if I don't see where I screwed up, I'll send you the last couple of minutes if you want it.:p
-
Ain't what they used to be.
"As to whether their memory is faulty, I'd say that coming that close to death in a fight for your life would still remain a very vivid memory even 50 years after the fact."
Sorry, but I have recently seen just how faulty memory gets, even re: exactly such experiences.
Rembered being in a 110 (wrong), remembered his CO being posted to the Eastern Front for having shot him down with friendly fire (wrong). Found Jesus on his way down, though (well, Jesus found him, he says, and there's no documentation re: that part of the incident).
So, sorry, physics>anecdotes, physics>memory.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
I swear that by the time this thread dies, we can all take a doctorate in P-38 trivia. ;)
Anyways ...
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
There were a few reasons why the P-38 didn't succeed in the ETO but none of them were because it was out classed by any German plane. If that was the case, it wouldn't have been as successful as it was in the MTO.
No the P-38 wasn't outclassed by any prop fighter in WWII (perhaps by some of the really late ones that saw little or no service). The P-38 was well suited to the conditions in the Pacific, Africa and the Mediterranean, where the combat took place mostly at medium and low altitudes. However it was unsuited for the high altitude escort role in the ETO. The cockpit heating problem, high-alt engine problems, low compression mach threshold at combat speed at high altitudes, inability to dive after LW fighters above 20k, poor initial roll rate, fuel quality problems in England, high production and maintenance cost all led to the P-38 being replaced by the P-51.
The P-38 was not outclassed ... but nor was it the right plane for the job in Europe. The P-51 was.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
what fact was the auto-flaps based on?
The same as the combat trim, auto take-off, auto climb, range icons, etc.
It's a helping game function, but if you're suggesting it should be optional like the rest ... I wholeheartedly agree.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Sholz, the only Luftwaffe fighter that actually outclassed the P-38 was the Me 262, and well, as a jet, it should have. And it outclassed the rest of the prop fighters as well, so that is not an apples to apples comparison.
As I said, the P-38 was not outclassed ... nor have I ever claimed it was. However the P-38 did have some vices that gave the LW an advantage in combat. Most of those vices were remedied in the 1944 L model. Little advantages have a way of adding up, but they certainly were not something the Americans could not equalize with skill and numbers.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and by the way Sholz, I did experience a death spiral last night and get it on film. :eek: It is however on a film that lasts over 1.5 hours, and I have not had time to watch it and analyze it. I will watch it, and if I find out I did something wrong, I'll tell you EXACTLY how I screwed up. I may have. If I did not, I'll edit it down to the last part of the film with a couple of minutes before the stall, and the resulting death spiral and crash.
I'll tell you what I think happened as I remember it without seeing the film. I was climbing up really hard after an La 7 trying to get the shot. My speed bled down to about 110 knots as I headed straight up, I think I had both the dive flaps out and the Fowler flaps fully deployed. As I reached the stall at about 110 pulled straight up, it nosed/rolled over, and I could not get the counterclockwise spin stopped and spun in. It was not a flat spin, but rather nose down. I don'tthink I cut the throttles, but again, with zero torque throttle setting should not add to or detract from a spin in the P-38.
Like I said, if I see where I screwed up, I'll tell you that, if I don't see where I screwed up, I'll send you the last couple of minutes if you want it.:p
Cut throttle, retract flaps, apply opposite rudder to counter spin, make sure the nose is pointing straight down, wait until it stabilizes (stall horn quits yelling at you), throttle up, and pull out. At low and medium altitudes you should not lose more than a couple of thousand feet. More at higher alts. If you spin below 2500 feet it's going to be close.
Post the last part of that film and I'll see if you indeed have found a new way to ruin a perfectly good aeroplane. ;)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
To say it was unsatisfactory in its operations against the LW is unfair and untrue.
It was unsatisfactory in the ETO. In Africa and the Med it was satisfactory, and in the Pacific is was supreme. The ETO mission profile more than anything accounted for the P-38 poor performance. It forced the P-38 to fly in a situation it was not suited for, and allowed the LW to exploit its vices while at the same time play on their own tactical and performance advantages.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Careful Ack-Ack, those Luftwaffles get real upset when they perceive an insult directed toward Willy or Kurt. They willl then proceed to draw a hidden microfilm from their rectum filled with never before released footage or diagrams.
Del please do not recount the story of how you retrieved the film........
:lol
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Ain't what they used to be.
"As to whether their memory is faulty, I'd say that coming that close to death in a fight for your life would still remain a very vivid memory even 50 years after the fact."
Sorry, but I have recently seen just how faulty memory gets, even re: exactly such experiences.
Rembered being in a 110 (wrong), remembered his CO being posted to the Eastern Front for having shot him down with friendly fire (wrong). Found Jesus on his way down, though (well, Jesus found him, he says, and there's no documentation re: that part of the incident).
So, sorry, physics>anecdotes, physics>memory.
Cheers,
Scherf
Well, the story of the fight between Galland and Lowell was originally told in the eighties, so they weren't that old. The story as printed in Joe Foss' book Top Gun was told at Maxwell AFB at a Gathering of Eagles reunion of fighter pilots. The guys in question, the majority of them anyway, were in their sixties and still very sharp.
As for what is quoted regarding how the P-38 flew, much of that was written in the eighties as well, both from pilot interviews and from log books written at the time and other verifiable reports.
Many pilots who flew in World War II kept log books that they still have to this day. One posts daily excerpts from his on a newsgroup. Several I know still have theirs. More than a couple were able to send their log books and copies of AAR's they kept to Stephen Ambrose for his book about the Pacific, that he was working on before he died. Ken LLoyd sent Ambrose a log book of his, and a huge box of papers from his time with the Headhunters in the Pacific.
Despite the fact that my father now suffers from dementia at the age of 76, when he was in his sixties, his stories matched almost exactly to the actual reports written by his CO's at the time they happened in both World War II and Korea (no, he was not a fighter pilot).
While memory is never perfect, and at times a little shaded, it is not by any means completely irrelevant, especially when log books and other documentation is available to back them up.
-
Hi Hilts,
>Well, the story of the fight between Galland and Lowell was originally told in the eighties, so they weren't that old.
[...]
>While memory is never perfect, and at times a little shaded, it is not by any means completely irrelevant, especially when log books and other documentation is available to back them up.
Are there any log books to back up the alleged Lowell vs. Galland fight?
Since I've not seen even a definite date for the fight, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hilts,
>Doolittle made the decision to replace the P-38 because the P-38 was in such short (critically short) supply, and there were plenty of p-51s. The P-38 was in such high demand and short supply throughout the war that Lockheed was forbidden under any circumstances to have production slowed or halted for more than 48 hours.
From THE P-51 MUSTANG AS AN ESCORT FIGHTER by USAF Lt.Col. Daneu:
'As late as June 1944, both Generals Doolittle and Spaatz remarked that the P-38 had some insurmountable problems to increase its performance. Doolittle noted, “The P-38 was a second-rate fighter when compared to the P-47 and P-51.”'
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>Well, the story of the fight between Galland and Lowell was originally told in the eighties, so they weren't that old.
[...]
>While memory is never perfect, and at times a little shaded, it is not by any means completely irrelevant, especially when log books and other documentation is available to back them up.
Are there any log books to back up the alleged Lowell vs. Galland fight?
Since I've not seen even a definite date for the fight, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
HoHun,
You and I had this discussion on the AW boards way back when. Where we left it was that the mission flown by Lowell would have to have been in late June-July 44. The last 38 flight for the 364th was on July 29, when they flew a mix of 38s and 51s during their transition to the 51.
Lowell mentions two lost 38s at the spot where he had the fight. The latest mission I can find for the 364th where they lost 2 38s is June 27, 1944.
Your argument at that point was that there were no "long nosed 190s' in operation so it couldn't have happened.
I then countered with reports that the 56th FG had reported the first encounters with "long nose" D9s on June 8, 1944 and the 370th P38s had fought them June 20, 1944.
At this point you said it simply wasn't true as D9s weren't operational and it must have been mistaken identity.
We left it agreeing to disagree as to whether Lowell actually fought Galland.
Might as well continue from where we left off, instead of rehashing it from the beginning right? :)
Dan/Slack (+Tiff back then)
-
Hi Guppy,
>Lowell mentions two lost 38s at the spot where he had the fight. The latest mission I can find for the 364th where they lost 2 38s is June 27, 1944.
Well, you can guess the date in an attempt to match the description, but it would be much safer to take the date from a log book and then check the rest of the information.
Without that information, we can guess, but I don't consider a post-D-Day date likely as Galland was completely tied up in staff work for quite a while after that.
>At this point you said it simply wasn't true as D9s weren't operational and it must have been mistaken identity.
To be precise, I checked a complete list of prototypes and couldn't find any armed aircraft that would have been available for fighting Lowell on the date in question. Much less an entire flight.
>Might as well continue from where we left off, instead of rehashing it from the beginning right? :)
We might give it an even better start than last time if we really got a definite date from the log book :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Careful Ack-Ack, those Luftwaffles get real upset when they perceive an insult directed toward Willy or Kurt. They willl then proceed to draw a hidden microfilm from their rectum filled with never before released footage or diagrams.
That's why I decided to pop in. Nothing funnier than seeing a LUFTWHINER bend over and grab his ankles
ack-ack
-
Running out of arguments are we? :D
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>Lowell mentions two lost 38s at the spot where he had the fight. The latest mission I can find for the 364th where they lost 2 38s is June 27, 1944.
Well, you can guess the date in an attempt to match the description, but it would be much safer to take the date from a log book and then check the rest of the information.
Without that information, we can guess, but I don't consider a post-D-Day date likely as Galland was completely tied up in staff work for quite a while after that.
>At this point you said it simply wasn't true as D9s weren't operational and it must have been mistaken identity.
To be precise, I checked a complete list of prototypes and couldn't find any armed aircraft that would have been available for fighting Lowell on the date in question. Much less an entire flight.
>Might as well continue from where we left off, instead of rehashing it from the beginning right? :)
We might give it an even better start than last time if we really got a definite date from the log book :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The logbook would be nice, but since I don't have access to Lowell's or Galland's, that makes it a bit tough :)
We'll have to play detective the best we can. Since Galland clearly had the conversation with Lowell at the Fighter Aces convention, something must have clicked.
SO! Is it possible that Lowell in a 38 in late June-July 44, ran into Galland in a 190D9?
Anecdotal accounts state that Allied pilots encountered "long nosed 190s" in early June 1944. If that is true, it is possible then that the fight took place. But if no "long noses' were being flown yet, then it makes it more suspect.
As a side note, in the book "JV44-The Galland Circus" Galland is noted as spending 'several days with units in the West" during late June 1944. It doesn't say specifically he flew, but he comments on morale, conditions etc that he saw while with them.
It does at least open the door to him having flown with them during that time frame.
When did D9s first become operational? Seems like I saw it mentioned as early 44 with JG "Udet" when RAF fighters first reported seeing 'long noses"?
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by HoHun
... Doolittle noted, “The P-38 was a second-rate fighter when compared to the P-47 and P-51.”'
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Taking in account the P-38's war record in other theaters, Doolittle was wrong. 90% of the USAAC aces in the PTO/CBO were P-38 pilots with the P-47 and P-51 dragging up the rear behind the P-40.
ack-ack
-
Yeah, but how many P-47s and P-51s served in the PTO, and for how long?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yeah, but how many P-47s and P-51s served in the PTO, and for how long?
For what it's worth in the MTO the highest scoring fighter group was the 31st which flew Spits then 51s. They claimed 571 kills in the air.
Second was the 82nd FG that flew 38s exclusively with 554 air to air claims.
The 31st had been in combat longer.
It passed the 82nd in kills on March 31, 1945 not long before the end of the war.
So the 82nd had been leading scorer for the majority of their time in the MTO, over two years.
A bit of additional MTO info.
325th FG was third with 540 claims. They were Jugs and 51s.
1st FG in 38s had 440 claims
52nd FG in 51s had 425 claims.
Draw your own conclusions.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Draw your own conclusions.
Dan/Slack
They already have, believe me, they already have.
-
I belive Doolitle's quote was taken out of context. His job was High-alt escorts in the ETO, and his remark must be refered to that.
MTO/PTO was a different story and the stories/statistics show.
Bozon
-
Hi Ack-ack,
>Taking in account the P-38's war record in other theaters, Doolittle was wrong. 90% of the USAAC aces in the PTO/CBO were P-38 pilots with the P-47 and P-51 dragging up the rear behind the P-40.
If you had give Doolittle Japanese fighters for the 8th Air Force, he'd probably have considered them "third rate". Looking at relative performance and flight characteristics - even the "second rate" P-38 compares favourably to them.
And the Allied strategy was "Europe first", so it's telling that the P-38 dominated the Pacific.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Guppy,
>The logbook would be nice, but since I don't have access to Lowell's or Galland's, that makes it a bit tough
Well, Hilts commented on 05-06-2004 10:34 PM as follows:
"Well, the story of the fight between Galland and Lowell was originally told in the eighties, so they weren't that old. The story as printed in Joe Foss' book Top Gun was told at Maxwell AFB at a Gathering of Eagles reunion of fighter pilots. The guys in question, the majority of them anyway, were in their sixties and still very sharp.
[...]
While memory is never perfect, and at times a little shaded, it is not by any means completely irrelevant, especially when log books and other documentation is available to back them up."
Does that sound like he's suggesting there is some documentation on the Lowell vs. Galland fight?
>As a side note, in the book "JV44-The Galland Circus" Galland is noted as spending 'several days with units in the West" during late June 1944. It doesn't say specifically he flew, but he comments on morale, conditions etc that he saw while with them.
>It does at least open the door to him having flown with them during that time frame.
Note that "the West" refers to the invasion front, not the Reichsverteidigung, which Lowell would have met over Germany. That information does indeed make the suggested date more unlikely.
>When did D9s first become operational? Seems like I saw it mentioned as early 44 with JG "Udet" when RAF fighters first reported seeing 'long noses"?
About September 1944.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Careful Ack-Ack, those Luftwaffles get real upset when they perceive an insult directed toward Willy or Kurt. They willl then proceed to draw a hidden microfilm from their rectum filled with never before released footage or diagrams.
The last time I looked this thread started to take heat when people started claiming the P-38L "didn't have any problems" with speedy dives. Or rather, somehow come into the mysterious conclusion of, "well there were problems, but it wasn't on a tactical level".
So let's not go that LuftWhiner path and make this more unpleasant than it already is. Having to listen to arguments which draws out its entirety on anecdotes alone, and then seeing people get angry because the subjectivity was pointed out, is already very tiring.
-
>As a side note, in the book "JV44-The Galland Circus" Galland is noted as spending 'several days with units in the West" during late June 1944. It doesn't say specifically he flew, but he comments on morale, conditions etc that he saw while with them.
>It does at least open the door to him having flown with them during that time frame.
Note that "the West" refers to the invasion front, not the Reichsverteidigung, which Lowell would have met over Germany. That information does indeed make the suggested date more unlikely.
>When did D9s first become operational? Seems like I saw it mentioned as early 44 with JG "Udet" when RAF fighters first reported seeing 'long noses"?
About September 1944.
At the time of JV44's formation there was not really any Reichsverteidigung as the 'West Front' had become the Reichsverteidigung. Sounds like a reference to the Western Allies only.
The first Doras began coming off the production line at Cottbus in Aug 1944. The Doras of III./JG54 (the 1st to convert) becoming operational in Oct 1944.
-
To the best of my knowledge, neither Doolittle nor Spatz ever commanded a fighter squadron or a fighter group as an active flying unit level commander. In truth, for the most part, the 8TH AF as a whole had a poor perfromance record in general, and failed to take proper steps to fix any problems they had with ANY plane or equipment for a very long time. The 8TH AF needed a scapegoat and a whipping boy to excuse their terrible record, the P-38 was a good choice for that role, since it was the ONLY fighter they had that could possibly do the job at all, for a while.
Further, Doolittle's quote was not only taken out of context, but it was based on reports from people who were not getting the job done, and needed something on which to lay the blame. Too many P-38 pilots in the 8TH AF were having success for the somewhat lackluster performance of the P-38 in the 8TH AF to be the fault of the plane.
When Doolittle decided to go up in a fighter over Normandy himself, he chose a P-38, not a P-51. When you're a General, in COMMAND of the AF, why would you choose what you thought was a third rate plane to fly into an area where it was quite possible you could run into enemy aircraft, especially when you flew alone? Hardly the telling indictment of the P-38 people are looking for.
The P-38 held the line from the time it arrived in 1943 until it was finally surpassed in numbers deployed in mid to late June of 1944. By then, there were plenty of P-51's and the P-47 finally had enough fuel to go the distance. Rather than add new P-38's, which by then were the J-15-Lo models and later, the decision was made to stick with the now more numerous P-51, and cut down on the amount of different maintenace supplies needed, as well as different pilot training, as logistics were still a serious issue for the 8TH AF.
The 8TH AF always lacked in properly trained P-38 pilots, from the time the first two groups arrived and went operational before their theatre indoctrination was finished. Both the 20TH and 55TH FG's had been continually stripped of trained pilots before they were even deployed, those pilots were sent to the MTO and PTO, because the 8TH AF was so inept as to believe that they didn't need or want long range escort fighters, of which there was only one available at the time. The P-38. Upon arriving in Britain, they were both already short of P-38 qualified pilots. The average pilot had less than 25 hours of experience in the P-38. The situation with replacements was far worse. Roughly 80% of the replacement pilots assigned to P-38 groups had NEVER been in a P-38 before, and were in fact barely competant in the P-51. If they could pass a test that included one successful takeoff, one successful landing, and a blindfold test, they were given a plane and sent on their way. Given the differences between the planes it was a recipe for certain disaster. While there was theatre indoctrination and training for P-51 pilots in Britain, no such thing existed for P-38 pilots, at least not until mid 1944 and later.
-
Available here: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html
It's a pretty good article written by a very competant pilot and scholar, Dr. Carlo Kopp, with some pretty good sources as well. The charts are on the second page. Evidently you can't post the charts here, for some reason they won't show up.
-
The average pilot had less than 25 hours of experience in the P-38. The situation with replacements was far worse. Roughly 80% of the replacement pilots assigned to P-38 groups had NEVER been in a P-38 before, and were in fact barely competant in the P-51. If they could pass a test that included one successful takeoff, one successful landing, and a blindfold test, they were given a plane and sent on their way. Given the differences between the planes it was a recipe for certain disaster. While there was theatre indoctrination and training for P-51 pilots in Britain, no such thing existed for P-38 pilots, at least not until mid 1944 and later.
Gee Virgil, sounds like those 38 pilots had less training that late war LW pilots. And, they were up against much more qualified (combat) LW pilots at the time.
Virgil did you look at this site? http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The last time I looked this thread started to take heat when people started claiming the P-38L "didn't have any problems" with speedy dives. Or rather, somehow come into the mysterious conclusion of, "well there were problems, but it wasn't on a tactical level".
So let's not go that LuftWhiner path and make this more unpleasant than it already is. Having to listen to arguments which draws out its entirety on anecdotes alone, and then seeing people get angry because the subjectivity was pointed out, is already very tiring.
Anecdotes alone? Try this chart:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RedLine.html
And while you're at it, try the rest of the article as well.
As far as getting angry, I think it was someone on the Luftwaffe side who called someone on the opposition a LIAR (breaks it down real fast to name calling doesn't it), threatened to report him to the German district attorney to be prosecuted and jailed (if he were in Germany), and threatened to tell Skuzzy he was a bad man, and try to get him banned from the boards. And you want to talk about someone on the P-38 side of the arguement taking it down the wrong path? Kind of blows your position all to hell doesn't it? Get real.
-
Hi Hilts,
>The 8TH AF needed a scapegoat and a whipping boy to excuse their terrible record, the P-38 was a good choice for that role, since it was the ONLY fighter they had that could possibly do the job at all, for a while.
>Further, Doolittle's quote was not only taken out of context, but it was based on reports from people who were not getting the job done, and needed something on which to lay the blame.
It's typical for conspiracy theorists to only accept evidence in favour of their theory, while blaming everything else to lies.
I consider it unlikely that Lt.Col. Daneau had any interest in finding a scapegoat when preparing the historical study in 1996.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Gee Virgil, sounds like those 38 pilots had less training that late war LW pilots. And, they were up against much more qualified (combat) LW pilots at the time.
Virgil did you look at this site? http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
Well, that statement comes directly from Captain Arthur Heiden. He was there, and was one of the pilots assigned to bring replacements into the squadron. The same was told to me by any number of P-38 pilots from the 8TH AF.
Regarding that thread you posted the link to, the guy claiming to be George Cuelleers (the spelling there is very likely wrong) turned out to be a very well informed fake. While his information was very good, he was not the P-38 ace he claimed to be, as the REAL George Cuelleers (sp?) was at the time nearly completely incapacitated in a nursing home.
While the thread is in fact very good, and much of the information verified as factual, it must be carefully examined, and has been tainted by the fraudulent claim made by the one participant. And that is a shame.
On the other hand, the reports of Robin Olds, James Morris, and John Lowell are indeed true. And verified. With the possible exception of the acceptance of some on the Lowell vs. Galland story.
-
Hi Hilts,
>It's a pretty good article written by a very competant pilot and scholar, Dr. Carlo Kopp, with some pretty good sources as well.
Kopp's chart seems to be based on the dive placard posted by F4UDOA, though he misrepresents the 10000 ft value as 480 mph instead of 460 mph, probably because of legibility problems.
Other than that, the chart confirms the low Mach limit of the P-38 I already pointed out.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hilts,
>As far as getting angry, I think it was someone on the Luftwaffe side who called someone on the opposition a LIAR (breaks it down real fast to name calling doesn't it), threatened to report him to the German district attorney to be prosecuted and jailed (if he were in Germany), and threatened to tell Skuzzy he was a bad man, and try to get him banned from the boards.
Anyone who cares to read the past posts will see that most of what follows behind your "I think" is untrue.
If you have the guts to repeat the same statement without the "I think", I will report you to the moderation again.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>The 8TH AF needed a scapegoat and a whipping boy to excuse their terrible record, the P-38 was a good choice for that role, since it was the ONLY fighter they had that could possibly do the job at all, for a while.
>Further, Doolittle's quote was not only taken out of context, but it was based on reports from people who were not getting the job done, and needed something on which to lay the blame.
It's typical for conspiracy theorists to only accept evidence in favour of their theory, while blaming everything else to lies.
I consider it unlikely that Lt.Col. Daneau had any interest in finding a scapegoat when preparing the historical study in 1996.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hohun,
I'm going to say this once, say it real clear, and I'm not going to waste time saying it again.
You have called me a liar. You have stated that you would like to be able to turn me in to German authorities and have me jailed. You have at least threatened to report me to Skuzzy and demand that he take some sort of action against me. You have further stated that I'm am spreading lies. I'm beginning to tire of your words and accusations. I'm also beginning to tire of your juvenile personal attacks. You have a real bad habit of tossing the words lie, lies, and liar around real freely, and accusing others of libel and slander, and it is getting very old. I have no use and no respect for people who act like you. You can take this any way you choose, and you can take it up with Skuzzy if you wish, I do not care. But I have had just about enough of it. You've gone off the deep end once already and launched a viscious tirade against me. I do not care to have anything else to do with you. Clear enough?
-
Hi Hilts,
>You have stated that you would like to be able to turn me in to German authorities and have me jailed.
That very statement is untrue and justifies calling you a liar.
Specifically, I didn't say I would like to be able to turn you to German authorities and have you jailed.
Here's the complete quote:
"Publication of statements with no factual basis (or based on a lie) that are fit to damage someone's reputation are a criminal offence under German law.
If you had posted your stuff on a German board, you'd be eligible for a one-year prison sentence now, and I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney.
The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this."
I will rely on the moderation to stop you putting words into my mouth, whatever you think of it.
Kind regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hey gents !
I know you're both good guys.
So instead of fighting and writing post you will both regret later
Why don't let the dust settle and let you cool down a bit ?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>As far as getting angry, I think it was someone on the Luftwaffe side who called someone on the opposition a LIAR (breaks it down real fast to name calling doesn't it), threatened to report him to the German district attorney to be prosecuted and jailed (if he were in Germany), and threatened to tell Skuzzy he was a bad man, and try to get him banned from the boards.
Anyone who cares to read the past posts will see that most of what follows behind your "I think" is untrue.
If you have the guts to repeat the same statement without the "I think", I will report you to the moderation again.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Report away. I have had enough. I was pretty nice about it the first time. It was YOU who called me a LIAR. There is no THINK about it, it is fact, written in plain English for everyone to see. Your posts are here, and I will repeat them here for all to see.
Here they are again:
Hohun said:
You are a liar, Hilts.
You either come up with a direct, unambigous quote proving your claim, or I'll report the next post where you make an unfounded claim like that to the moderation of this forum, complete with a request to take action against you.
Publication of statements with no factual basis (or based on a lie) that are fit to damage someone's reputation are a criminal offence under German law.
If you had posted your stuff on a German board, you'd be eligible for a one-year prison sentence now, and I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney.
The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this.
I think that pretty much says it all, Hohun. I take note that there was no moderation action taken against me the first time, and in fact I was never contacted, never warned, and Skuzzy never posted here. You've been making threats against me here on this board and I'm getting tired of it.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Hey gents !
I know you're both good guys.
So instead of fighting and writing post you will both regret later
Why don't let the dust settle and let you cool down a bit ?
I have not posted anything I regret straffo. I have not made any threats, obvious, or veiled. I have not called anyone any names, I have not accused anyone of anything. But I'm getting very tired of Hohun and his tirades and personal attacks. There is no excuse for it and no need. I won't continue to tolerate him accusing me of lying, libel, and slander while he openly calls me names and makes personal attacks on me. He's doing everything to me he accuses me of doing and it is getting old and tiresome. Not to mention out of control.
-
I used the future Virgil :)
you will both regret later
It would be better you put each other on ignore, if a fight can be tolerated on O'club here I don't think it can be tolered.
Plus as an external observer I think it plus a problem of misunderstanding or culture choc than anything.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hilts,
>You have stated that you would like to be able to turn me in to German authorities and have me jailed.
That very statement is untrue and justifies calling you a liar.
Specifically, I didn't say I would like to be able to turn you to German authorities and have you jailed.
Here's the complete quote:
"Publication of statements with no factual basis (or based on a lie) that are fit to damage someone's reputation are a criminal offence under German law.
If you had posted your stuff on a German board, you'd be eligible for a one-year prison sentence now, and I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney.
The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this."
I will rely on the moderation to stop you putting words into my mouth, whatever you think of it.
Kind regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yes, Hohun, it says right there in what you and I quoted that :
"I wouldn't have to turn to the forum moderation because I could go right to the district attorney" and "The laws in the US migh be different, but I'm not going to discuss anything with a liar who tries to flame me for statements I never made. That's why I'm going to let the moderation resolve this."
Notice that you say you are going to turn me in to the moderator of the forum because since I'm not in Germany you cannot go to the district attorney. Notice where you called me a liar. At least that is how it reads in English.
As such, you supposedly turned me in to the moderator (you said you did) because you could not turn me into the district attorney (you said you could not because I was not in Germany, but you could if I was), and you called me a liar. That is exactly what I said that you said and did. Nothing more and nothing less.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I used the future Virgil :)
It would be better you put each other on ignore, if a fight can be tolerated on O'club here I don't think it can be tolered.
Plus as an external observer I think it plus a problem of misunderstanding or culture choc than anything.
I choose my words pretty carefully. I appreciate your concern. It isn't culture shock or a misunderstanding. The word liar written in English is pretty well understood by most cultures and not realy a vague reference.
Thanks again for your concern.
-
Gentlemen, this thread has beaten the dead horse enough. When it becomes nothing but personal, and loses all objectivity, it pretty much ceases to be a viable discussion.