ien's math max stupid max speed. in level flight internal and external load affects only acceleration to reach that top speed. top speed itself is not affected.
m1 is a licensed hispano mk.ii, afaik. an/m2c is a development of m1. fh hispano mk.ii has 650rpm and 850m/s fh m1 has 600rpm and 840m/s fh an/m2c has 650rpm and 820m/s irl hispano mk.ii has 650rpm and 860m/s HE, 808m/s AP, 867m/s In irl an/m2c has 650rpm and 853m/s HE-In, 797m/s AP do you have data on m1? http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p38_8.html http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p38_12.html p-38,p-38a,b,c,d has 37mm m9 p-38e,f have 20mm m1 p-38h,j,k have 20mm an/m2c
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Sloppy engineers/designers those IEN folks are. I know maneuverability is affected by fuel loading.
Speaking of seating position: Anyone playing AH, will have the ability/feature of moving the pilot's position around; left -right-fore-aft and up and down to a certain limit. Not sure how much of a job that would be to add that feature here. IMHO: I do not think it's right to say that a certain plane cannot have as much visibility as another just because the player cannot move the pilot's head around as in R/L. The inherent design of a cockpit could have favored a view not in keeping with a fixed head/eye position of the dev's decision. Perhaps a little further optimization of all the cockpits- pilot fixed eye position could be made? Make all pilots 6 feet tall instead of 5' 7" ?
Well, that's pretty much what I'm doing with the P-38 cockpit. Giving the expected view potential. I'm 6ft tall and sit higher in a seat than some folks. But, you could always put a booster seat pad to raise the pilot back then.
1-st, I think its wrong to compare speed at normal power from fh with speed at military power from spitperformance. Our p-38f is little slower than should be below 6 kfeet (5-15 mph, not 29) and about equal or veery little faster above. 2-nd, results of p-38f at spitperformance gained with 14 673 pounds, it is ~40% fuel, not 100%. P-38F loaded is 15 900 lb, fuel capacity: Internal for Early model through H: 306 U.S. Gallons (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p38.htm). Our p-38f is little slower below 2km (especially at normal) and has about 20 sec less wep, than should. But it climbs to 20 000 feet at 7.2 min (real - 7.6). So there are little deviations from reality to both directions and it doesn't look so bad. If there are any questions, i can repeat any trial and post track. P.S. J and L little later P.P.S. About its maneuverability and that video, i think its not only p-38 problem, it seems all planes here should have better unsustained turn at medium and high speed. Deeper research is needed here. And btw, Bf-110g2 has about same thrust and weight as p-38j but has much more lift... I think this one plane itself is enough reason to talk about p-38 family keeping in mind other planes too .
1st:It isn't wrong to use actual test data and compare it to WBFH aircraft. I spent a bit of time working on that to make sure it was correct and fair. I can test the P-38 at Normal Power 2600RPM / 87% throttle at those altitudes again and provide a chart for Normal Power. Just don't know who will fly aircraft at 87% throttle all the time. I can also provide some climb rates for one engine operation. ( P-38 can also take off on one engine and climb. Try that in WBFH.%) ) 2nd: Fuel weight vs speed? I don't know what you mean with spitperformance or that warbirdregistry. That isn't where my data came from and I'm using actual test data, not a fan site. And besides that...... Climb rates are fine. And other planes, I don't care how they compare with the P-38. Especially within WB. I refuse to compare other aircraft within WBFH because they are NOT modeled correctly. I'm concerned about P-38 top speeds in any event. Like I said in the past, I want the P-38 to be historically accurate, not uber. If the information I find and present hurt the P-38, so be it. If the information I find helps the P-38, I'm happy too. Problems still present in the P-38: 1. Slow at various speeds with various variants 2. Seriously nose heavy so auto-trim won't pull it up. (P-38 only problem) 3. Goes into dive even with auto-trim when launching in airstart (P-38 only problem. Can't prove now because airstart disabled in TA) 4. Dive Recovery Flap on P-38L interferes with standard flaps making them move up automatically. This is wrong. 5. In level flight, P-38F and J start to dive and torque roll Left with no stick input. 7. In level flight, P-38L starts to climb and torque roll to the Right with no stick input. 8. One 20MM ping to tail causes both vstabs to fall off. 9. WEP does not fully function and reduces as alt is increased as shown in RPM gauge.
IRL we have engine regimes, in general: • economical/cruising for maximal km per litre • nominal for saving engine resource • climb/combat for 15-30 minutes • take-off/wep for 1-10 minutes economical/cruising regime can be discarded because it does not spoil engine too aggressive. so we have three regimes: nominal, climb/combat, take-off/wep regarding engine resource spending. in FH we have two engine regimes: • 100% • wep therefore we must arrange how 3-4 regimes must be represented by 2 of them. considering fighter life comparable to 15-30 minutes developers meant that every player can fly combat/climb mode all the time. so far developers supposed that FH100% is climb/combat power and FHWEP is IRLWEP. nominal and cruising/econo can be played with 60-80% of FH engine. there's some exceptions with certain engines with cooling problems, like m-105pa or bmw 801 dg. for example, yak-1 must fly on nominal regime and with climb regime it overheats quickly (intensive mode, low speed, insufficient cooling). fas modelled it with wep as IRLclimb/combat. lagg-3 and pe-2 don't have such problems with radiators and they're modelled with fh100% without fhwep because m-105pa(105ra) don't have wep mode. on the other hand early fw 190 a-3 with bmw 801 dg had limitations for manifold pressure up to 1.35ATA which exhausted engine's resource too quick. and maximal allowed boots for combat/climb was 1.31ATA. note that fw 190 a-3..a-7 had bmw 801 d-2 have 1.32ATA for climb/combat and 1.42 for takeoff/emergency. because wep of 801 dg coincides with combat of 801 d-2, we made 190 a-3 just lacking wep of 190 a-4. ok, long story short: afaik allison has 47inHg@some2600rpm of boost for climb/combat and 60inHg@3000rpm for takeoff/wep. now you can understand that p-38 FH100% is climb/combat regime and FHWEP is takeoff/wep regime. so don't try to test 38 on 87%. it won't be correct at all. you must compare fh38 with fh100% against irl38climb/combat(47inHg) and fh38 with fhwep against irl38takeoff/emergency(60inHg).
U urself put link to this chart http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38f-lockheed-rep2338.jpg This chart is published here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html and it is written that trials for this chart were performed with 14 673 pounds. P-38 with 100% fuel is 15 900. I know that it does not affect max speed in WB, but i measured climb too, so add info about what fuel load i took and why. I understand, but, i really think there is a chance that p-38 and others maneuverability will be fixed. Also i'm sure that p-38 never will turn here like it turns on video u posted until all planes get that realistic turning ability too. (Talking exactly - realistic turn rate at speed dependence). I think its main question to solve for FH fm for closest future. With heavy nose and other "P-38 only" problems i agree.
• "all p-38 lower nose" and "p-38l raises nose" are contradictory. make your statement more precise, pls. • do you have charts of allison-1710 power vs alt to state that wep must not reduce with alt? if you agree with gil's tests, we can approve 10mph lack 0-3000ft and speed charts coincide pretty well from 6000ft to 20000ft. this is not dive recovery flaps. this is dive brakes. ien has standard logics for all planes: flaps remove brakes. i proposed to rgreat to model dive recovery with first flaps position that raise nose instead of lowering, but it also will reduce turn time/radius. looks like rgreat did not agree with it.
With cooling problems, limitations, and other man made imperfections or poor designs, design flaws, manifold pressure adjustments, coolant adjustments, prop adjustments, gun jams, inability/ability to move head around cockpit obstructions, those things aren't practical to apply here. I'm understanding you correctly, correct? Just like having unlimited lives, automatic gunners (ottos), auto trim, restrictive/selective radar, un-biased aircraft control surfaces falling off, fuel leak draining entire fuel system, are not realistic or comparable to real life data. Limited programming is what I see is part of the problem. I can understand that. I just want to put out my best approach to achieving the best balance of the aircraft's performance, not hindering or restricting it's potential. Putting a handicap on an aircraft just isn't fair just because other aircraft are not modeled correctly. So, you want climb test data from my perspective on the P-38? I can do that. I just need to know if this is a climb test with manual stick input or with auto-trim/auto-speed/auto-angle. Trim response isn't very good in the P-38 so I'm wondering what else is involved.
I don't see where it says spitperformance. If modeling does not take into effect weight vs level top speed, I wouldn't expect it to be logical in climbs. If weight has no basis on top speed, then a 4,000 lb Cadillac should be able to be as fast as a 4,000 lb Bugatti Veyron. Just the experience of the engine sound slowing down as the aircraft slows down in a vertical hang (hammerhead) has had me scratching my head. Engine speed should remain the same in any condition for aircraft since there is nothing slowing them down. This is a learning experience for me so I'm just equating what I can understand. To me, climb is fine. Maneuverability is fine, considering what the aircraft weighs, although real life video footage proves current WBFH P-38 version is seriously inadequate. Like I posted above, I don't think it's fair to handicap an aircraft just because other aircraft are not modeled correctly. I am confident that the devs will correct some of the obvious issues like torque roll drifting and nose heaviness.
The P-38F and P-38J will drop their nose and roll/bank to the left if you let go of the control stick, in level flight. The P-38L nose will start to raise and roll/bank to the right if you let go of the stick, in level flight. It's an easy test to perform. I'd like to know where it is stated that WEP lowers/loses application with alt. Maybe I missed that information. Top speeds are very important in this game/simulator. This is why I am being stubborn and persistent about RPM ratings used here. 100% throttle is 3000RPM (military/combat power). Why can't we use 3000RPM ratings? When chasing or being chased, it becomes obvious acceleration and top speeds are insufficient. P-38F can't even maintain 311 mph level with WEP (IRL 3000RPM(100%throttle)/WEP=335MPH+) and after a 5000ft dive. Taken from "P-38 details: data and information pertinent to virtual modeling" "The P-38 had perhaps the fastest linear acceleration of all US propeller planes during WW2 (This was true to for all variants for their respective times) . For example, starting at sea level at 250 mph and applying COMBAT power the P-38L's linear acceleration was 4.13 ft/s2 (1.26 m/s2), whereas the P-51D's linear acceleration was 3.85 ft/s2 (1.17 m/s2)." If we can't attain combat power when combat is needed, it's an unnecessary handicap. Dive brakes by IEN description? These are not brakes by definition but, they do slow the aircraft down and raise the nose. It's just aerodynamics. They worked well enough to allow complete vertical dives and to pull out easily. These are dive recovery flaps as designed and were designed to regain control of the aircraft when in a dive where the air pressure over the control surfaces was too great for the pilot to overcome. (due to the P-38's super clean aerodynamics shape) It would disrupt the air to allow for controls movement. They were and are a separate component. They were introduced on the P-38J-25Lo and later variants. rgreat didn't change this programming mistake, but, can we correct it now?? Note dive recovery flap and fowler flaps engaged/disengaged fully.
design problems should be modelled manufacturing problems shouldn't service problems shouldn't yak-1/m-105pa has a designed cooling problem in comparison to lagg-3/m-105pa and pe-2/m-105ra which hadn't. as well as early 190 a-3 with bmw 801 dg actually can work under 1.42ATA which is proven by brits. but it destroyed the engine very rapidly, so brits could not finish tests of faber's plane. if 1.42 was forbidden for bmw 801 dg by design, so be it in FH. yes. considering take-off weight and manifold pressure notes gil and i gave you earlier. optimal speed according to pilot's manual
you said that all 38's drop nose. in the same post where you said p-38 raises nose. please don't deliver contradicting messages. here because it looks like you want to shift engine regimes IRLnominal=FH87%, IRLmaximal=FH100%, leaving FHWEP surplus for further advantage over opponents. you must be guided by this compliance: IRLmaximal/nominal/whatever=FH<100% IRLcombat/climb=FH100% IRLtakeoff/WEP=FHWEP format of complaint announced http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=699407&postcount=54 report: IRL situation: Xmph at Zft gained after dive. should decelerate to X-Dmph in Nseconds. FH situation: Xmph at Zft gained after dive. 38 decelerates to X-D2mph in Nseconds. FH D2 does not correspond to IRL D. leave us without yankees phrases "the ultimate super best in the galaxy and universe perhaps may be probably", pls we have a plenty of soviet memoires "with la/yak i can kick shit out of any opposite pilot whatever plane he appeared in" in answer for that phrases. that's the part of quote you could only cite. anyways: with 4.13 ft/s² lightning can reach sonic speed in 100 seconds. Code: s km/h m/s² 0 400 1.258819 10 413 1.258819 20 438 1.258819 30 476 1.258819 40 526 1.258819 50 589 1.258819 60 664 1.258819 70 752 1.258819 80 853 1.258819 90 966 1.258819 100 1 092 1.258819 you should specify conditions more accurately. ok. here what we have: flaps position 1: angle1, lift addition cy1, drag addition cx1, nosedive moment 1, speed limit 1 flaps position 2: angle2, lift addition cy2, drag addition cx2, nosedive moment 2, speed limit 2 flaps position 3: angle3, lift addition cy3, drag addition cx3, nosedive moment 3, speed limit 3 flaps position 4: angle4, lift addition cy4, drag addition cx4, nosedive moment 4, speed limit 4 four positions max. dive brakes applied: drag addition cx extending dive brakes will remove flaps. lowering flaps is forbidden while dive brakes applied now you propose how to model dive recovery flaps. p.s.we have 38f-1, 38j-15, 38l-5. julliet got dive brakes at the same month as lima got them. so dive flaps chat is related only to our 38l-5.
I did with manual input, p-38's auticlimb is inadequate for that. Used speed about recomended in pilot's manual, but not too strict. Seem best speeds for climb in WB and IRL are close enough. here they say about 5 min combat and rest time at normal http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html our p-38f can hold wep for about 4 min 45 sec. Yep, but almost all american planes (exept may be p-51H, p-38K etc) had poor linear acceleration in compare with european or late japan planes because of lack of power per weight. P-38 was best among them. The only american plane that makes 350 - 450 kmh faster than modern p-38 in wb is p-51b (vs p-38j). (need some time to find exact results). And american competitors to p-38f are p-40, p-39 and f4f, surely its acceleration was very impressive in such company . Its not due to its super clean aerodynamic shape, it wasn't cleaner than p-47, f4U or 190, or it should dominate by speed at all alts with its superior thrust, but it did not. Its because of its great wingload and big H-stab. The more is H-stab square the more force u need to apply to put plane at certain angle of attack, and the more wingload u have, the bigger angle of attack u need to certain maneuver. So p-38 needed that special measures for handling at high speed.
Ok, I'll post again to clear this up. The P-38F and P-38J will drop their nose and roll/bank to the left if you let go of the control stick, in level flight. The P-38L nose will start to raise and roll/bank to the right if you let go of the stick, in level flight. When launching any P-38 variant in airstart mode, all P-38 variants, F, J, & L will drop their nose in a nose heavy presentation. This test cannot be conducted at this time as airstarts are disabled. You asked for charts that state WEP must not reduce so, I would expect you have charts that prove WEP must reduce. Well, then I guess the other aircraft are not modeled correctly. It's not like P-38's are wiping golds off the map. I think the Tempest is proving it's modeling results before it's castrated. I don't understand what you are saying here. I'm not amused. So, I posted a quote of someone stating how well the P-38L accelerated vs the P-51D. They are both American aircraft. I didn't post something stating the P-38 could knock any fighter out of the sky during WWII and win the war alone. And stop using this "these are yankee stories" non-sense. I can easily get started on Soviet Communism arrogance. Yankees are a baseball team and are what Northern Americans are called. Southern Americans are called Rednecks/Rebels/Hillbillies. Calling these yankee phrases just shows ignorance. Most of these pilots and manufacturers and companies were from the 'South'. Very funny. Sonic speed? Well, they did put P-38's into some pretty fast dives. Are we talking about jet aircraft or piston aircraft? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3OYZyRzZ1k Lowering flaps is forbidden while recovery flaps are deployed? Says who, yankees? Propose how to model? I would expect it was something that could be corrected/modeled. I didn't say I could model anything. So, who would do the modeling?
