Might some of the variations in speed figures published be because instead of giving maximum achievable speed by a factory-fresh well-serviced plane they're giving typical maximum speeds for planes actually in service that are a bit worn, and operating in all kinds of weather?
Lots of the figures one sees for maximal performance of aircraft need to be treated carefully, for instance maximum altitude (particularly in bombers). Whilst a plane might well be capable of struggling up to the published altitude, in practice it would generally operate at much lower altitudes, for various reasons:
- time taken to get up there (and vulnerability whilst clmbing)
- aircraft loadout
- wear and tear on the aircraft
- temperature at altitude - it gets damned cold pretty quickly as one climbs, and at 25-30,000ft is WELL sub-zero, into double figures sub-zero IIRC. Think of the effects on the machine in terms of icing (which can coat the wing, making it perform ess well, and also increase drag dramatically), and on the pilot (in those planes without heated cockpits
As a by the by, the Ju88A4, which I fly a lot, has a published ceiling of 8-9 kilometres, but most raids flown by the LW seem to have gone in much lower than this, seldom being over 6km (20,000ft). As it happens, in my time in War Birds, I found that for general mission planning purposes, we simply did not need performance and climb data for the Ju88A4 for altitudes over 6km, as the time taken to climb higher, and thus greater fuel load that needed to be carried, didnt justify the time and effort. As in real life, we always planned to get the job done with the minimum load we needed, so as to obtain best performance, and traying to take a heavily laden Ju88 up to the limit of where she'll climb usually is simply not worth doing (assuming that the simulation reflects real life tolerably accurately, which RL the performance figures Ive seen seem to indicate s the case). I've also read a statement (apologies, cannot recall where) by a US WW2 fighter pilot that flew in Europe that he never flew any mssion that went much over 15,000ft - which surprised the heck out of me, but I'm not going to argue with someone who did the job for real!
Also, bear in mind that AH doesnt yet model engine wear and tear. If it did, you would NOT be able to run at 100% throttle all the time, as a lot of folk do, because your engine would overheat and sieze. Full throttle was generally only used on takeoff and initial climbout, and (in the case of fighters) when about to engage in combat. Even the 400mph+ fighters would often be doing nearer 300mph a lot of the time... - if the truckload of stuff Ive read over the years is anything to go by (I dont claim I am definitely correct; just that if I am not, then I've come across a great many incorrect sources (and there ARE quite a few such about).
Personally I like the P38, except for its poor downward visibility (be interesting to know what actual pilots of the plane thought on that subject). I fear P38s more than most other planes, if theyre on my tail. On the other hand if I'm on a P38 tail, it IS a rather nice big target! (being a lousy shot, I like all the help I can get! ):-} )
Agreed on those dive/manouvre flaps. We could do with better representation of them on all planes that had such things, AND modelling of engines siezing if used flat-out for too long, IMO...
Esme
