Well, on this page here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-28392.html there is stall data at the bottom of the page. Gear position____Flaps____Manifold Pressure___RPM___IAS, MPH Up________Up________Power-Off_________________97.5 Down______Up________Power-Off_________________99.5 Up________Down_____Power-Off__________________86.0 Down_____ Down______Power-Off_________________80.5 Up________Up________33.0" Hg._________2400____90.5 Down______Up________33.0" Hg._________2400____94.0 Up________Down_____33.0" Hg.__________2400____65.0 Down______Down_____33.0" Hg.__________2400____60.0 With these numbers, you can see why it was possible to turn lead with a zero. People also seem to forget the wing and engine design. The wing, being positioned above center of the engine, and tilted in such a way to encourage lift. Compare that with other bottom/low positioned wings on other fighters. And also compare how close the props are to the leading edge of the wings, giving a better lift from the immediate airflow from the engines.
Great video about fighter tactics , very interesting talk about P38 in part 2 I believe.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5r5wPisKMg&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmcDue6Q7Dg&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tXkQPAO67M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeP3tWe20PE&feature=related
The issue I have with those numbers is that the engines are not producing maximum power at those settings. Even with those settings, however, it seems like if one were skilled enough in the P-38, they could shoot down the a6m really half-assed.
>...[T]he P-38 was a difficult plane to fly with some >handling characteristics that were dangerous, Ixnay!! Other than knowing how to handle an engine-out situation on take-off (the usual VMC business), the Lockheed offered no trouble. A complex airplane? For its day, yes. A dangerous airplane? Not at all. This P-38 debate is endless, but some things about the P-38 that made it such an marvelous design haven't been brought up that probably should be: To achieve high-speed capability, an airplane will have high wing-loading (gross weight to wing area) and low power loading (gross weight to horsepower). The P-38 had very high wing loading (which provides other benefits, such as when penetrating weather, etc.), higher than anything other than one-off record-breaking and racing planes when it was introduced. And it also had unusually low power loading; in fact it had the lowest power loading of any US design (maybe any design) of WWII. Turbocharging ensured this power loading would remain constant to very high altitudes. This meant the airplane would be fast. But high wing loading would normally degrade turning, climb and ceiling. With such high wing-loading, the P-38 should have been a dog in all but top speed. It wasn't because of two other factors. One is its aspect ratio (span to chord ratio; that is, the relationship of the length of the wing to its width). Another, related, factor is its span loading (ratio of airplane weight to wingspan). In turns or climbs, a plane's drag tends to increase and its speed to decrease. A way to counter this is to increase the wingspan. For any given wing area, increasing the span decreases the chord, providing a higher aspect ratio. For structural and other reasons, most WWII-era fighters had aspect ratios of 6 or less. The P-38 had an amazing aspect ratio of 8, meaning that it could gain the advantage of high wing loading for speed and still not lose in maneuverability, climb or ceiling. A large wingspan, however, generally degrades a plane's rate of roll because the wing surface is so far out from the fuselage and center of gravity. Making the wing tips narrower by tapering the plan form does a lot to counter this. Normal fighter configurations had a taper ratio of about 2 (the wing tip being only about half as wide as the wing root). The P-38 had a taper ratio of 3. So, you had an airplane that was fast yet a good climber, a good turner and good roller. But wait--there's more: Power has to be converted to thrust thru a propeller. Big powerful engines need big propellers to handle that power, but the diameter of a prop is limited by tip speed. So power has to be absorbed by adding blades or increasing their width. But a prop working harder on a given volume of air has inherent aerodynamic inefficiencies requiring performance compromises. Bottom line being that propeller inefficiency limits the value of engine power. But because the P-38's power was in two "sections" (engines), each with its own propeller, it was able to use its power as efficiently as a much lower-powered airplane operating at lower speeds. And the increased propeller disc area of the two props ensured that the plane's power and thrust would be maximized throughout the maneuver range. This thrust efficiency made for an airplane that leaped into the sky on take-off and could accelerate in the air like a drag racer. Pretty neat, huh? But wait--there's more: Ordinary fighters of the day had a tail length ratio (number of times the wing chord goes into the distance from the center of gravity to the tail surfaces) of between 2 and 2.5. This ratio might be compared to wheelbase on a car. A shorter wheelbase makes for a choppier, less stable ride. The P-38's tail length ratio was a whopping 4. This means it had excellent damping, or the tendency to slow the rate of departure from a trimmed position. This made it a great plane for flying long distances in, with one finger on the wheel, or for instrument flying, or as a steady gun platform or for dropping bombs. The large tail length ratio required a smaller than normal tail surface area because of the increased arm at which the surface worked. This reduced drag and made for a truly excellent flying airplane. Not bad, huh? But wait--there's more: The width of the horizontal tail surface was determined by the spacing of the booms. The result was a very high aspect ratio for the tail plane. The endplate effect of the two vertical fins and rudder surfaces on the end of the booms produced an aerodynamic apparent aspect ratio that was even higher. This had the effect of providing very rapid changes in force with small changes in the aircraft's angle of attack. This great sensitivity, combined with superb damping, meant that less trimming force was necessary for stability and that there was a wide range of CG position or stability available without degradation of flying characteristics. Like, wow, man! But wait--there's more: The high aspect ratio of the horizontal tail also produced narrow chord elevators, which in a turn meant light control forces for maneuver. Ditto for the vertical tail surfaces and rudders. Net effect, the pilot could dance the airplane all over the sky without breaking a sweat, while bellowing out the latest tunes from "Oklahoma!" to drown out the curses in his headphones of any other pilot in some lesser machine that he chose to sky-wrassle with. Because the engines rotated in opposite directions, they produced a symetrical slip stream flow which eliminated the need the carry rudder displacement, thus reducing a source of drag. And there was no change in trim with changes in speed, which was a pure blessing in maneuver combat, er, dogfight. Then there is the Fowler flap system which actually increases wing area, tricycle landing gear, centerline fire guns, plenty of internal fuel, a roomy cockpit.... The P-38 also had an amazing degree of detail refinement compared to other planes. All its external surfaces were smooth with no distrubances from rivets or lap joints, for example. One negative was necessarily small ailerons because of the wing taper, meaning large aileron displacement would be necessary to initiate a roll. That meant high aileron forces. That's why the control wheel was used, and why the later models had aileron boost. Savvy pilots would blip the inside throttle when they wanted a smart roll ASAP. Less savvy pilots did lots of pushups. And there was the cockpit heating and defrosting thing (by the way, it's just as cold at 25,000 ft. in the tropics as in Europe), which did get solved about as soon as it became apparent. Cooling was never as effectively solved. But, all in all, a pretty damned good flying machine. As pilots of the day said, if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38 From http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
Imho , we all agree 38L was capable fighter. Imho , we all ( except you ) agree: Our P38F has too good sustained turn with full flaps. P38J is more or less Ok. P38L suffers from nose heavy effect. All 3 models have elevator issue. btw, Jesus would prefer more Ki84 imho.
Where did I disagree? I feel that after flying the P-38 for a little while that we have a P-38G instead of F model. I also feel that the Fw-190 and P-38 may be lacking in turn rate, but I haven't done sufficient testing on the 190 to confirm that suspicion. However, when I pull the trim tab well up on the elevator with the FW, I find that I at least have a sufficient instantaneous turn rate at the initial break from recent experience. After that first turn, it's rubbish to sustain the turn. I would have to confirm that instantaneous rate opinion with more time in type. IMO, all P-38 models suffer from being a little nose heavy. This is due to the elevator modeling. It feels as though somewhere along the way, the arm of the elevator force has been reduced significantly, thus causing the issues with control authority and feeling of being nose heavy. IMVHO, whatever symptom is causing the P-38 to perform as poorly as it is applies to other aircraft that have had their control forces modified.
Yep, I saw it happen where they would and still do a shotgun change. Making performance changes to all aircraft which, is really irresponsible as I've mentioned before.
Well, I'm glad you see that, because there lies another issue which ties together throttle position and thrust effects. At full throttle, the aircraft will accelerate, and maintain some speed position but, causes a wide turn radius. Many times when turn fighting I reduce throttle to about 75% when turn fighting to keep it from widening the turn radius, or go idle with careful stick input which causes the aircraft to become very unstable as it nears 110mph. This is in the L model, and is worse in the previous variants. This touches in my view, heavily on the throttle and engine output. Two standard RPM rates used in testing by Lockheed and the USAF were 2600 and 3000 RPM and 3000 RPM+WEP respectively. Testing of these variants is quite important but, the RPM rates and resulting power/thrust/speed is what we're looking at. The amount of resulting power/thrust/ top speed should affect it's stability at slow speed, high speed, climb speed, stall rates, etc. Right now, as for the RPM/throttle indication, 100% should yield 3000 RPM results, and 87% 2600 results. In real life, the reason for choosing 2600 RPM as a standard engine speed was due to fuel consumption and air intake/turbo temperature issues. So, my testing of top speeds will be fair and expected. Climb rates I'm not sure can be addressed correctly until some of the odd behaviors are corrected, such as the nose heavy, torque rolling, ineffective/weak auto-trim, etc.
Just need to watch videos like this to realize how well it performed. This video is of a P38 F type variant. Note how little elevator and rudder input there is compared to how much the aircraft moves. Note also the launch off the runway how quickly it takes off climbing. And some nice knife edge moves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PQfAWFHHFA&feature=player_embedded#!
Ok, you mb agree then. So, how you agree, when u say here 38 may be lacking turn rate? Turn radius or turn speed, what u think? If you check Hoofs page, you will see there that best results in turn P38F achieves with full flaps , unlike many other aircrafts. P38F is not supposed to be some Energy fighter ...Our 38 F turns too good with full flaps.Dont even start with FW 190 , those aircrafts are not comparable to P38s.Fw is energy fighter, it is capable of very good instant turn , it has reasonable sustained turn , no need to compare it to spits. Fw achieves its best performance in some other types of turning, energy turning. If there is something our Fw needs to be improved, that would be roll rate .Fw is dangerous aircraft to fuck with already ...Or mb you need track where 190 with 8x50 bombs outturns yakT ? Hey , P38 was not , and never will be Zeke .Half throttle, full throttle, doesnt matter, what is important is Optimal Corner speed. Turn it at specific speed, you will have the best results. You can even find optimal corner speed on hoofs page for each p38. If americans tested plane at half throttle, even if they fought combats at half throttle, We dont care , its their problem. Where it says its P38F ??
Hmm, I gues im not good at expressing myself about this P38F.. Stop making it more complicated than it actually is. Elevator imrpoving for all models, worse turn for P38F only . Its simple.
IMO, the only reason the F model sucked at turning was because of the roll rate (no boosted ailerons), lack of the reinforced flaps, and not as much power as later models. The only thing I could possibly suggest to the side of making the P-38F a "worse turner" is to have the flap settings reflect the lack of reinforced flaps.
Any aircraft can lead-turn with a Zero ... for a little while anyway. I'd wager that trying to do so for more than a second or two would be the quickest and surest way to get yourself killed. I won't for one second believe that the P-38 could in any way outdo the Zeke at that game.
agree 100%, and with rest of what you said. If this is how you react , by getting confused, how about to stop trying so hard...We dont want to make new airplane out of your confusion.. I never used term "reinforced flaps" so pls dont involve me into those kinds of situations, just be sure to check 3 times what you writing.. There is imho option "preview post". Hey , how about we ask moderators to validate every your post in the future, like when someone opens up new account , to be sure you wont say something wrong? Just pls dont use me as an excuse because you dont know from post to post what would you like more : to cut its turn , or to improve its turn..
