Boy was I wrong. P-38 is suposed to be crappy like it is in AH

[Fishu]

I would prefer J over L in AH where engine reliability is not an issue..
Trades off some speed for maneuverability, although not with as good ailerons of course
At least in warbirds I liked J alot more over the L model

[F4UDOA]

Cit,

Well I have seen your data for a 440mph P-38L with two 1750HP engines, however I can find no documentation to support it. In fact "America's Hundred Thousand" has it at about 414MPH at 25K and 340MPH on the deck. In fact the performance charts from the AHT match the AH charts exactly. However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production. Unless of course you have some document you can share with me to prove it. BTW the listing for HP in the P-38L should be 1,600HP per engine combat power, 1,425hp mil power. This is the rated HP from the P-38L-5 tested in the June 1944 Fighter conferance.

Here is a quick list of what is wrong with the AH P-38L as far as I can see.

1. Climb is low by about 200FPM through the entire climb spectrum compared to the charts. This could be attributed to weight in which the AH P-38L is modeled. Like I said to you before, prove what the beast weights and then compare that against the documents. If Pyro thinks a fully loaded P-38L weights 19,000lbs then you better prove that it doesn't first.

2. Stall is off by about 5mph to high clean, power off. The stall listed in the manual is for power off at 100mph. Stall power on in the P-38 is higher. The power on stall in the P-38 is 105MPH in AH and that is probably generous.


3. Flaps does not sufficiently lower stalling speed. This is in all A/C in AH that use flaps for landing or maneuvering. Note : the 38 flaps seem to be better then other flaps in AH.

4.Peculier stall. When you stall the 38 straight ahead it does not roll of on to one wing as some say. I believe this happens when combat trim is left on. Turn it off and the 38 will not depart to either side regardless of how much back stick is applied. After several seconds of hanging in the air until the nose falls through the horizon the A/C will then fall off to one wing.

Thinks that are right with the P-38L.

1. The speeds match the charts 100% throughout the altitude range with and without WEP.

2. With 30 degrees of flaps a very tight turn at 2.5G's at an impressive turn rate can be archived at about 160MPH. This turn cannot be matched by the F4U in AH at that G load. This is also generous.

3. The dive break makes diving from high alt extremely easy with no fear of compression. Also extremely effective for bleeding energy in a dogfight.

If there is any one thing that can be pointed too in the P-38L for realism is a extra couple hundred FPM in climb. This is based on the loaded weight of the P-38L as being 17,600lbs.

The End

[BUG_EAF322]

For  once and for all the p38 did crap in the ETO just like the Luftwabbles did over brittain(when there was no short off good trained experienced LW pilots) Those schnitz could bnz those spit wouldn't they?
in the BOB.

The fighters where tied to the bombers and couldn't sweep freely.

The P38 paved way to europe giving the americans the experience to make the stang succesfull.

The P38 is better and more allround than the german planes .

The IJN planes where certainly not worser as the german planes so was it with their spirit and experience.

Saying that ETO is the big difference with the pacific is big BS.

S! chaps

(sorry nath for not being gramatically correct)

[Citabria]

no F4UDOA your wrong. 440mph is bogus as is 1725hp engines in fact 1600hp and 414 mph is bogus too.

the P-38 is overmodelled
its obvious
it climbs to well.
turns to good
dives to good
stalls are so docile its like you dont drop a wing at all.
its also to fast
real p-38s had bad engines so they sucked in combat.
should model p-38 with only 1300hp per engine.
this would be more realistic

personally I don't give a toejam what you do to it because I'm never flying AH again.

[Tac]

"However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production"

What? The P-38M did fly and even had some kills.

"Note : the 38 flaps seem to be better then other flaps in AH"

Fowler Flaps. In AH I think they dont even come close to giving the P38 the manouv. they are supposed to give.

I disagree with your COMBAT TRIM idea. The P-38 did that even before the combat trim was put into place. I fly the P-38 now without combat trim, with combat trim and alternating in mid flight in some occassions and it still does it. When in near-stall the 38 will roll VIOLENTLY like if it was under the effects of Torque. Heck, its worse than a 109 with WEP on. Ridiculous!
 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_16.html

Plus, a P-38 mounted with EIGHT .50 cal's and 4 more on the wings (I WANT ONE!!):
 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/g1guns.jpg


[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Vermillion]

Santa, its from the data tables in Vol.1 of Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War by Gordon and Khazanov.

The Soviets were the only nation that kept two entirely different sets of flight test data on their aircraft, which were collected for two entirely different purposes.

One was for aircraft testing typically called "prototype data", and the other for quality control called "production data".  In reality, its a matter of semantics, since the manner in which Allied aircraft were flight tested more closely resembles the "prototype" data set of the Soviets (in my opinon).

Pyro has consistently used the data collected for manufacturing quality control ("production data") which is the lower performance of the two sets.

If you go to most reference books, its a 50/50 shot at which data set the books will quote. The book I referenced above, is one of the few that actually lists both sets of data side by side.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[GRUNHERZ]

 Verm dont take this wrong but wouldnt this "production data" more accuratly represent an actual combat planes performance? Certainly a pampered prototype would have different flight abilites than a standard plane.

thanks GRUNHERZ

[fscott]

I also have that book and I'm with Verm on this one. The Yak is way too slow. Can't wait to see if the La7 actually runs 380mph at sea level as its supposed to...


fscott

[Widewing]

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Cit,

F4UDOA Wrote:
"Well I have seen your data for a 440mph P-38L with two 1750HP engines, however I can find no documentation to support it."

You probably won't find any 'official' AAF data that supports it prior to 1945. This is due to the USAAF not approving the 3,200 rpm
WEP rating for the P-38L-5-LO until 6/45.

The higher WEP rating did not appear in the pilots manual or techpubs until 115-145 octane avgas was available in quantity. You may note that the 1,725 hp rating came at the
higher rpm, with MAP typically well above normal limits of 60 in/Hg. One could expect to see 64 inches at the higher output.
I have copies of General Ben Kelsey's notes from several of his test flights in late run
P-38Ls. At the higher WEP rating, he reports
440+ mph @ 26,200 ft, with 3,180 rpm on the tachs. Takeoff weight was around 17,500 lbs,
with full internal fuel and ballast in place of the ammunition.

"In fact "America's Hundred Thousand" has it at about 414MPH at 25K and 340MPH on the deck. In fact the performance charts from the AHT match the AH charts exactly."

Diz Dean is a fine engineer, and he spent many years putting together America's Hundred
Thousand. However, some of the data he used has long since been repudiated as politically
or personally motivated.

For example, the test report titled, Performance of Aircraft, generated by the Army Air Force School of Applied Tactics in
Orlando (issued 9/12/43), provides performance data for several aircraft, including the P-38. What generally goes unnoticed is the fact that the pilots flying the P-38 did not advance the MAP beyond 48 in/Hg, and never explained why in the report.
Yet, one of the Lockheed service tech reps on
hand for the test said that when he questioned this, he was told to shut up or
leave the base.....

So, we have a lot of suspect test data from
the AAF. We also have (I do) test data from
Lockheed that some might suspect as being a
bit ambitious. Somewhere in between is the
truth. Kelsey was reliable. I trust what he
said, primarily because he left most of his
papers behind, and his reputation was above
reproach.

"However your 440MPH P-38 appears to be an P-38M which never reached production. Unless of course you have some document you can share with me to prove it. BTW the listing for HP in the P-38L should be 1,600HP per engine combat power, 1,425hp mil power. This is the rated HP from the P-38L-5 tested in the June 1944 Fighter conferance."

The WEP limits were discussed earlier.

The P-38M was the night fighter. I believe
that you are thinking of the P-38K, with its
1,850+ hp F-15 engines and paddle blade props. The K was the best performing P-38. Moreover, its performance was limited by the P-38s rather low critical Mach limit of .68.
Now as to the Navy sponsored 'Fighter Conference': Most of the pilots who attended had never even sat in a P-38 prior to their first hop. Most of the pilots were single engine jocks. One exception was Corwin Meyer of Grumman. He had quite a lot of time in the P-38F. Corky is still with us today, unlike the vast majority of the others who also participated in this boondoggle. Meyer was pleased with the P-38L, liking its remarkable low speed handling and tight turning radius (yes boys and girls, the P-38
could out-turn anything in the Luftwaffe inventory, especially below 20K). Corky will
tell anyone with an ear to hear that it took
many hours to develop the skills required to extract maximum performance from the complex Lightning. That is why the average pilot did much better with the P-51.

"Here is a quick list of what is wrong with the AH P-38L as far as I can see.

[snip]

2. Stall is off by about 5mph to high clean, power off. The stall listed in the manual is for power off at 100mph. Stall power on in the P-38 is higher. The power on stall in the P-38 is 105MPH in AH and that is probably generous."

I'm not sure what you saying here, but as a rule, power-on stalls occur at lower speeds than power-off stalls. Especially in the P-38 with a significant portion of its wing blown with propwash, that generates considerable lift.

Another point: Climb rates cited for the
P-38 are generally below that of the aircraft's capabilities. Lockheed's data indicates that the P-38L could get to 20,000 ft in just over 5 minutes at normal combat weight (17,500 lbs give or take 200 lbs). This is in WEP, and the average rate is just over 3,800 fpm. Even at 'normal' power (2,600 rpm @ 44 in/Hg), the P-38L gets to 20k in 7 minutes flat. That's still averaging nearly 2,900 fpm.

An excellent article on the P-38 will appear in Air Power International (February issue).
This magazine is published down in Oz, but
can be found in the USA and Britain. If you cannot find a copy, visit: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

This is essentially, the same piece. Their is some terrific material by the guys who actually flew the P-38 in the ETO.

My regards to all,

Just a visitor.

[Hooligan]

Widewing:

Have you scanned any of these documents so that they can be emailed?  Are they posted on the web anywhere?  I'd certainly like to get copies myself and I'm sure that any number of other readers of this BBS would also like to.  What email address can you be reached at?

thanks,

Hooligan

[Jigster]

Those P-38 pilots did pretty good in Europe considering most engagments were averaging about 1:3, which can be blamed on LW ground controllers often mistaking P-38 flights for bomber formations on radar and sending up everything available, causing the LW to mass even in the Medd. after the LW had all but been wiped out.

The P-38 was easy to spot, and easy to distingish between in a dizzying dogfight, the main reason LW liked fighting them. Much better then fighting P-51B/D's which were often mistaken for 109's and vice versa   http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/p38article.jpg

(Rest of the article will follow upon request   )

------------------
     
33rd FW www.33rd.org

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 01-19-2001).]

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by Tac:
Heh, P-38 now suffers from stalls that are simply laughable, torque effects (I think we have the FRENCH P-38 modeled.. POS with no counter-rotating engines LOL) and an almost total lack of flap effects which has the P-38, the most flap dependant plane, to behave like a pregnant cow when it should behave like a springy gazzelle.

So yes, it IS the french P-38. *grin*

 french p38 was not aware of such plane ? they were produced by loockeed (sp?) too ?

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
<snip>Certainly a pampered prototype would have different flight abilites than a standard plane.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Sure but the planes have to be modeled on the same basis : prototype for all or production for all but not the way it is.
(I fact I don't have the data handy but I trust verm  )

[F4UDOA]

Widewing,

Where did you come from? Please continue to contribute to these message boards, it sounds like you have something to contribute.

First let me give you some background into what you are reading. Some of what I wrote was tongue in cheek for the benefit of others who make outrageous claims of performance with nothing to back it up.
Second there are three points that you brought up that I can address quickly.

1. Yes as a rule power on stalls are lower than power off. Except in the P-38 they are not. My data comes from two places. The Fighter conference of 1944 where stalls were tested in all conditions. From an engineer (Wells) who frequently contributes on these boards who explained that very thing in another post.

2. The P-38L would have achieved higher performance with the 115/130 fuel that was in use in late 1944 and 1945. But as a rule the performance comparisons are kept to a standard of 100octane. For instance the F4U-4 could climb at 4770FPM and reach 20,000ft in under 5 min. at that octane. With 100 octane the performance was reduced to 4,000FPM. It helps keep everyone on the same playing field. It's not an unawareness of higher octane fuels and there performance benefits.  http://214th.com/ww2/usa/f4f/bullet08.gif

3. I happen to know Francis Dean and believe me when I tell you. He did not write that book with any secret agenda. He did put together one of the few real analytical looks at WW2 fighters. Did he have some incorrect data? Yes, of course, but nothing that can't be sorted out by a second year engineering student. He happens to be 75yrs old right now and in the process of writing another book on VSTOL A/C. He is quite the man.

4. If you have any data on the Fighter conference please either post it or e-mail to someone that can. This data is as rare as the A/C that flew. So if you have anything to contribute please do.

Thanks
F4UDOA

[Vermillion]

Grunherz, admittedly its a matter of perspective and also of translation thru another language, but let me explain.

First off, realize that the flight test data for the Allied aircraft typically also come from "pampered" aircraft that are finely tuned aircraft maintained by either factory engineers or the best maintenance people that the air forces had to offer. These were the planes that were usually being used for acceptance testing, and therefore the manufacturers had a reason for the aircraft to perform to the maximum possible. They were not "average" aircraft right off the production line (typically).

Also let me explain something that I have learned in my career as an engineer. Test Data (in this case flight test data) means nothing without knowing first off how it was collected (the test conditions), and secondly why it was collected. If you know "why" it was collected, it will explain what the people conducting the test were looking for, and give you insight into the process.

So let me explain how this applies to the Soviet data. "Prototype" data was collected to see what the aircraft could do, admittedly the aircraft was tuned to see its maximum performance. So if the aircraft was performing badly that day they fixed the problem, tuned the engine, or whatever was necessary to get the aircraft flying correctly. Basically just like the American/British aircraft testing (which is logical for both sides).

Soviet "Production" data (if you read the description of it) was collected to help the aircraft manufacturers find defects of "average" aircraft and how to improve manufacturing and quality control techniques. So if they pulled aircraft off the production line and it had minor defects or ran rough, it was not fixed or tuned in the least. Because they wanted to know what problems were occuring, how badly these problems effected the aircraft, and how best to fix the quality control problems.

So do you see the difference?

In my opinon, if you look at how the data was collected and why the data was collected, you will see that for VVS aircraft "prototype" style data matches most closely what is collected for Allied aircraft.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure