Typical late war fights for Alied vs Axis was in outnumbered state for Axis side. Keep that in mind. In 44+ luftwaffe was severely weakened and lacks fuel. And, as more time passed, more desperate situation became. Compare numbers of fighters per Allies and Axis on western front in the last year and you will get the idea.
hey zembla , clean off your dirty knees! i never said the p-38 was my favorite ride ever. in fact i rarely flew it! but it's handling was reduced and why?? why was the hellcats reduced?? why have the spitfires rollrates been reduced even more?? because you sorry saps just get so p[issed off you can't keep them easily enough. stick with your goddamned boom and zoom tactics which were what the axis crap was all about. ( except the japanese aircraft). and i never said all american planes were superior. i have read on many accounts that the p-38 could turn on a dime at slow to medium speeds. its climb improved in later models from the j series on up. and gryphon is correct british recieved p-38s not up to USAAF standards. why exactly i do not know. probably to preserve some bit of secrecy. alsoi expect all pilots who want to have thier aircrafts to perform as they should to supply info. in the past i have supplied info for your POS axis crap as well. i get thanks then. but when i try to support my side. you dumb ----s get all paranoid! ya know the p-40 for being outclassed by most axis aircraft did perform well didnt it??? it couldnt turn with zeros ever. but could turn more so with 109s be cause 109s couldn't turn no where as well as a zero. even then the 109s still used boom and zoom to preserve thier lifes. the spitfrie (especially the V series) could turn inside any 109, even the f series which were the best turning 109s. is this not true?? many 109 pilots cured when those leading slates opened up when they got into a firing position. i have read much, as have you . so don't insult me on my info which i give in many of my posts. ya know anyone can present a makeshift photo copy and make it look old and authentic. its funny how some things are acceptable here. while info from many numerous aircraft books and many websites are just brushed off. funny, very funny. most of all i think these reductions are to help reduce lag. which is stupid. just have some sort of kick for people with bad lag. why reduce handling??? pathetic. any how my last posting here. i am finished with FH and fly elsewhere now. so <S> to many i have flown with and against. and most of youbrown nosing golds which run this forum can go well ya know use you imagination, or even better post facts but even then you will sugar coat it. but the picture in my mind gold shitheads stuck in each others rear ends! go f---in bye and good ridance!
At max power it would be 2050PS in A-8. A-4 has 1760PS. This is why a-8 can turn as fast as lighter a-4 (not as tight tho). Also p-38 has smaller turn radius than 190s.
Okay fair enough, but the Lightning in that evaluation is a P-38F, not an L-model. With the introduction of the J and later models the performance of the Lightning made a quantum leap forward. The only problem in that test - P-38F had its engines limited to 1100hp only, while normal P-38F had 1325hp engines. But WB P-38F has 1100hp engines too.
At max power it would be 2050PS in A-8. A-4 has 1760PS. 2050PS looks like all-in-one... 1870hp with C3 injection.
1730PS avail at SL for A5 3min. P-38 load wing 230kg/M^2 190A5 218kg/M^2 but P-38 speed high in tune(very good Ca/Cd), smallest radius has only use flaps.
in general... ... a post, which includes "you golds" or "them reds", will rarely leave any other impression for me than to be surprised (took me some minutes to find this mild word) about mentalities. i don't care about ususal/always-same-colour-pilots (me included) and there certainly is occasionally talk in jokes or anger, where statements about country-colour can't be taken serious. discrepance in numbers may temporarily generalize personal emotions to colour-affairs. but to write down kind of nation-like, colour biased suspicious opinions, covered as facts based on prosa-readings, to draw conclusions about common characteristics of individuals of 'the other side'... i'd say, such demands more self-reflectiveness towards one's gaming-attitude. if the favourite plane, or tactic, let one keep stuck to same colour, then it's pretty usual to get conditioned to the other as 'con' - but when those single 'enemies' start to build colour-'nations' in one's mind, then a change to solitaire or bridge for recreation should be considered!
IIRC times of sustained turn were measured with 100% fuel, as always. Am I right? If that is the case then it is no wonder that fighters with great fuel load are looking bad in comparison with others.
OKAY GREAT MATH but while looking for a athentic p38 gunsight to try to make for a p38 on fh i found a sight with a intressing amount of debates with this posted by someone who seems to know aht hes talking about. and now were do i see span to cord ratio span loading or wing taper metioned in turn or roll performance of p38 and both were superior to most ww2 fighters. also on there i saw in a few place that compresion in dive was only danguos over 1500 feet below that suposidly it dints reach the" mock decmial" at wicth the control would beat pilot senslees. From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: P-38 why effective in Pacific and not in Europe Date: 16 May 1998 00:41:31 GMT >...[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. AND 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. So, which plane would rather go into combat against the Luftwaffe in?
Yup. Well, I got a confession to make. I hadn't flown the FH v1.6 P-38L before making my initial post. I just looked at the numbers I quoted and was appalled that the Fw-190 could easily out turn the Lightning. Anyway, as someone had already pointed out to me the figures were from both planes best sustained turn, not their fastest turn. I think that part must have gotten lost somewhere in my brain. I finally got my install of FH1.6 to work yesterday (had some problems with an 'incorrect path to WB' error message), and I took the P-38L for a test flight, and what can I say ... whatever degradations have been made to her handling are largely unnoticeable IMO. She still turns quite well and is just generally fun to fly. Therefore I think I owe an apology to exec/rgreat for my somewhat aggressively worded posts. Sorry folks.
I've found the argument hard to prove, but I'll see for myself at this next airshow if I can get some questions answered by talking to some folks there!..... Fina-CAF Airsho
Political shit Pay attention that only Japanese planes get aerial damage and they even don't make any attempt to "evade"...
