P-38 Bugged

Discussion in 'Engineering Retrospective' started by -ALW-, Jan 25, 2003.

  1. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Flying the P-38 Lighting BY THE LATE JEFF ETHELL

    Too many pages to read maybe...? Ok, I'll paste the important information here.

    ....The single dominant impression is this thing is smooth and effortless to fly ?quite unlike the more complex warbird types. Managing both engines quickly becomes second nature. Stalls are docile; just a rumble as the airflow starts to break up and move toward the wingtips?no tip-stalling tendencies . To recover, just relax backpressure and fly away while shoving the throttles to full power with no worry of a snap-roll. At a 15,000-pound gross weight, a power-off gear- and flaps-down stall is 70mph! Those Fowler flaps are superb. While flying formation with the Cherokee Six camera ship, I was full of trepidation. The last time I did that in a Mustang, I held a bootful of right rudder, hanging on the ragged edge of a reduced power-on stall. At 100mph, I could hang the P-38 on its props , feet on the floor, and gently move the rudder to slide side to side....

    ......Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. The 109 would have been a sitting duck.

    This transitional performance is what made the Lightning great in a dogfight; it gave it far more versatility than a single-engine fighter. No doubt, if it were flown like a single-engine fighter, it would come out on the short end, but when a pilot learned to use everything available to him, it was stunningly dangerous to the enemy. One final characteristic made all this worthwhile: there was no converging fire from the wings. A P-38 pilot could get all of his guns on target whether it was 10 feet or 1,000 yards away. Convinced they were flying the finest fighter of the War, Bong and McGuire were sold on this combination. They had no hesitation at going round and round with Zeros and Oscars, which were supposedly more maneuverable.

    However, once going downhill, the other Achilles heel of the Lightning comes out: compressibility. I never got there, but I passed 400mph in a dive without much time to think about it. There's a dive-limit placard in the cockpit, and observing it was absolutely mandatory. The Pilot's Instructions state, "As the airplane approaches the critical speed, it becomes rapidly nose-heavy and starts to buffet as if it were about to stall. If this condition is allowed to develop, the nose-heavy condition will become more pronounced, and it will be very difficult to pull out." Many never pulled out. Fortunately, the P-38L had dive flaps?large electrically driven surfaces under each outside wing that deflected no matter what the speed. I hit the switch on the wheel and, with no pull on the wheel at all, the plane pulled out and pitched up into a shallow climb. When I retracted the flaps, the nose pitched down into level flight?all with no input. Unfortunately, dive flaps did not come along until the late J Series?....

    .....landing... Move flap handle to the maneuver stop; gear down below 175mph; 50 percent flaps at 150mph and settle into the downwind. From base to final, bring the power back to 18 inches and stabilize at 140mph. With the field made, add full flaps, bleed airspeed down to 120mph; over the fence at 100 to 110mph, but never exceed 100mph on touchdown or the P-38 will really eat up some runway. Both throttles to idle and pull the wheel back. That first landing at around 80mph felt like setting a baby carriage down with a satisfying squeak?way too easy . Hold the wheel back for aerodynamic braking, then lower the nose; we haven't gone much more than 2,000 feet. Absolutely amazing.

    With one engine out, the landing technique is similar with the following exceptions: 160mph and 1,600 feet on downwind, aileron boost off to conserve hydraulic power, 50 percent flaps at 140mph; partially reduce rudder trim, approach no slower than 130mph. At 44 inches and 2,600rpm, the P-38 will barely hold altitude with gear down and flaps up and will not hold any altitude even with some flaps extended. Do not extend full flap until closing the throttle on the good engine for landing. Below 500 feet with full flaps, you must land as it will not make a go-around.

    Off the active; brake to a stop; flaps up; coolant flaps full open; boost pumps off. Back to the parking area, throttles up to 1,200 rpm; stabilize temperatures; mixtures to idle cut-off; mags off; battery off. I have come full circle. Reining back some obvious prejudice from growing up with Dad's memories, I have come to see the P-38 in a far different light. There is little doubt in my mind I have flown the finest American fighter of WW II. It may have taken a little more time to master and certainly was more complex to maintain in the field, but the options available to the Lightning pilot were impressive. A talented, aggressive fighter pilot could clearly make the P-38 sing. I count myself fortunate to have heard, at last, that siren song. :director:

    Lockheed P-38L
    Lightning

    SPECIFICATIONS

    Wingspan:
    52 ft.

    Length:
    37 ft., 10 in.

    Height:
    9 ft., 10 in.

    Max. Takeoff weight: 22,000 lb. (14,000 lb.
    basic combat wt.)

    Total wing area:
    220 sq. ft.

    Max. speed:
    414mph at 25,000 ft.

    Range:
    2,000 miles

    Armament: four 0.50 in. machine guns, one 20mm cannon

    Service ceiling:
    44,000 feet.



    RELATIVE SIZES, Lightning vs. P-51D
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    My feeling is that the P-38F and P-38J would carry most of the same settings with the slight exception of engine HP and the absense of boosted controls plus the divebrake/flap. Aside all of this....I am the only one complaining it seems, but these changes must be undone and possibly some updating as these P-38s were undermodelled anyway from the start! :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2003
  2. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Say, on that note I have to add this: The P-38 with counter-rotating engines were initially proposed very early. The "same direction rotating engines" never saw combat. The other thing is the direction of the rotation. The rotation was changed because of the prop-wash affect which caused buffeting. What I mean here is the change from the inside rotation to outside rotation.
     
  3. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Ahhh...these 'memories'...

    For example:
     
  4. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    And?? :@popcorn:

    I have information. Tell me what you think? If you have some information to counter this, then I still have more to provide, proving my case. :cool:

    Information like proving that the P-38 flies as horribly as it does in WB as it did in real testing. Too bad we don't have 109F-2's to fly, but we sure have an accurately modeled one don't we. :znaika:
     
  5. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Best way to convince me is to give me P-38's sustained 360 degree turn time/radius/speed, with description on weight, plane model, altitude and engine/flaps settings used in tests.
    If you can reach these data, you will get similar perfomance in game. Guaranteed.
     
  6. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    So, from what I understand, you didn't have this information to start with when you entered the settings? What information did you use? How was it implemented if you can explain it in simple terms. I'm sorry to be asking so many questions although you want an answer, but I need to know for research sake as this info is not necessarily documented for some reasons.
    Question I have now is this...How are you going to use the information I give you concerning sustained turning rates? I don't see WB as being able to make use of that information. It just doesn't make sense because the testing done that provided the top speeds, climbs, and stalls were done many times and probably averaged out which explains the variances in results that you see on the internet and in books. There are just too many variables which PRIMARILY depended upon pilot input that make those results impossible to determine and come to a definate conclusion. Tony LeVier was a master of the P-38 and was able to make that plane do simply amazing things that most pilots were not at all willing to take the risk to perform. A finely tuned, perfectly running aircraft, under perfect circumstances, no wind, no humidity, cold, hot or anomolies plus with no other input other than a simple joystick and a few buttons are what make these warbirds seem like hotrods.

    I was hoping that a simple power to weight ratio (fact, not testing), wing loading (fact, not testing) , and top speed (testing) at certain altitudes would be used and considered.

    If you can be more specific on what information is used I'll look that up.

    Having said all this really asks a lot for you to explain and to bring to a layman's understanding. But if you can, again, let me know what info you actually use to input.
    I appreciate you looking into this and listening to all my writing. :cheers: You guys do a great job. You've just gotta change the P-38's back to what they were and possibly even make them true to specifications. Thanks for your time. :@prayer:
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2003
  7. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Heh.
    I already have 'information is used' so i dont need it.
    I repeat, i search for sustained turn times.
    Dont need to give me power to weight, wing loading and top speed. Thease are quite simple to get.
     
  8. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA

    I don't think you follow. I am simply asking what information/data/numbers you enter into the
    programming?!?

    :dunno: :rolleyes: :confused: :dura:

    "sustained turn times" ??? Do you know what you are asking??
    If you want sustained turn times we need to be specific.
    Flap settings, speeds, alts, gear dropped?, and pilot input must be considered and I don't have that information readily available.

    A "sustained turn time" to me would be a result of pilot input depending on what he can do in his experience. I don't see how it's feasable to come to a conclusion with data like that.

    This is like working backwards. If you have a turnrate/rollrate/climbrate/sustained turn time/divespeed etc you have information resulting from pilot input dependant soley upon his ability/capability.

    Say if you put two P-38 pilots against each in a duel. One loses eventually. Does the loser fail because his aircraft of similar qualities are not modelled correctly? Of course not, it is pilot input. This is where I am lost having to present a "sustained turn time" which I have no idea how it could apply to the aircraft in it's settings.

    So, having said all this now, what info do you really want? :dunno: Can you not use the established data already known and available everywhere? :deal: If not, why not. :confused:
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2003
  9. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    P-38F
    Power: 2x1325 hp
    Weight (Empty): 5561 kg
    Weight (normal takeoff): 7210 kg
    Weight (Max load): 8163 kg
    Wing Area: 30.5 m2

    All power/wing loads are counted at normal takeoff weight.

    So powerload is: 2.72 kg/hp
    Wingload: 236 kg/m2
    -------------
    Compare with Bf109G-2:
    Powerload is: 2.10 kg/hp (Much better)
    Wingload: 191 kg/m2 (Much better)

    Compare with Bf109K-4:
    Powerload is: 1.55 kg/hp (TWICE better)
    Wingload: 193 kg/m2 (Much better)

    Compare with Fw190A-4:
    Powerload is: 2.34 kg/hp (Considerably better)
    Wingload: 214 kg/m2 (better)

    Compare with Fw190A-8:
    Powerload is: 2.53 kg/hp (Little better)
    Wingload: 247 kg/m2 (Little worse)

    Compare with Fw190D-9:
    Powerload is: 1.91 kg/hp (Much better)
    Wingload: 242 kg/m2 (Little worse)

    And the REAL 'Pig-Bird': ;)
    Compare with P-47D:
    Powerload is: 2.72 kg/hp (Similar)
    Wingload: 237 kg/m2 (Similar)
    ;)

    After all....P-38J/L models make it even worse in turns.
    P-38L:
    Powerload is: 2.48 kg/hp (Little improvement on powerload)
    Wingload: 260 kg/m2 (Significant increase of wingload)

    Any numbers you can get on turn times.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2003
  10. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Same as the aicraft max speed. if you stick to the 'rules' you always get quite similar results.

    What you trying to say?
    We cant use ANY test data ?
    Or P-38 test pilots was poor trained ones?
    Or maybe they did not know the way how to test and compare planes?
    ;)
    Ok ok, just bring the test report with numbers that favor P-38.

    What kind of data 'available everywhere' i did not use?

    P.S. Hm... I starting to think that you keep attacking me, while did not say anything constructive (except the fact that P-38 used Fowler type flaps).
    Maybe i must just leave the discussion? :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2003
  11. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2003
  12. Bobby

    Bobby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,902
    Location:
    St.-Peterburg, Russia
    Уже дважды буффы начинали со мной на П38 маневренный бой.
    Первый раз g4m имеющая превышение начала крутить петли с моим Р38F, когда мы разошлись после 3 петель, он сохранил превышение надо мной и смог оторваться(пошел вулчить ф32).
    Второй раз Ю88 с превышения, видимо без бомб, начал акстарить меня над ф8. Я зашел в вираж, где то на 270MPH этот буфф повис у меня на хвосте поливая из пулемета, чуть чуть не доставая. Затем после 3-4 витков с совместной потерей высоты он вышел из виража. И в пикировании оторвался. Потом правда вернулся и начал вульчить хмаки.
    Это так мысли в слух. Вся инва в инете об P38 в WB устарела окончательно.
    Роман, приводя цифры на предыдуших страницах ты слегка сравнил не все данные :) . У лайтнитга самый большой размах крыла 52ft, а подъемная сила зависит от него больше чем от площади. Точнее при одинаковой плошади крыло с большим размахом имеет большую подъемную силу. Так что сравнивать вираж тольно исходя из нагрузки на крыло не совсем верно. Хотя какой он был в реальности мне не удалось найти. Может попросить ALWа связаться с каким-нибуть владельцем этого самолета, что бы он померил :). Или с Локхид-Мартин. :D
     
  13. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Ну ну....нет слов....вот прямо даже в пикировании оторвался... :)
    зашибись как маневренность на пикирование оказываеться влияет :)
    Надо завтра гденить в час ночи с тобой на ТА протестировать Ju88 против P38. :)

    У Б17 еще больше размах крыла. :)
     
  14. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    29,809
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Совершенно верно, еще тяговооруженность профиль и механизация.
    Ну еще тот винты ВРОДЕ БЫ немного больше обдувают крыло у 38 чем у 1 моторных.
    Насчет размаха (с 1й и тойже площадью)....ну не знаю...не знаю...спецы есть?
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2003
  15. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    простите, что влезаю, не разобравшись.
    коэффициент подъёмной силы зависит афаир не от размаха, а от удлинения крыла (квадрат размаха делённый на площадь).
    точнее от удлинения зависит аэродинамическое качество. а подъёмная сила таки зависит от площади (и профиля).
    по параметру удлинения лайт лидер, это верно.
    мням... следовательно, коэффициент сопротивления крыла получается ниже. но сопротивление тоже числится произведением коэффициента на площадь ;)
    Code:
    	Размах	Площадь	Удлинение
    LA-5FN	9.80	17.50	5.49
    YAK-9	9.74	17.15	5.53
    P-47D	12.42	27.87	5.53
    Spit-9	11.23	22.48	5.61
    P-51D	11.28	21.69	5.87
    MIG-3	10.20	17.44	5.97
    BF.109G	9.90	16.20	6.05
    Typhoon	12.67	25.92	6.19
    FW.190A	10.50	17.70	6.23
    BF.110F	16.20	38.40	6.83
    P-38J	15.85	30.43	8.26
    
    простите что запутал. :shuffle:
    может кто-то более осведомлённый вмешается?
    проще всего найти параметры устоявшегося виража.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2003
  16. Bobby

    Bobby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,902
    Location:
    St.-Peterburg, Russia
    И это плюс Лайтнинга по сравнению с одномоторными самолетами.
    exec - классная табличка, только надо было названия самолетов до одинаковой длинны уравнять :)
    Кстати хорошо видно, что P38 и Bf110 имеют очень много общего. Честно говоря про возможности виржаа у P38 мне ничего не известно, а то что 110 мог удивить по крайней мере 109ого, это из истории принятия 110 на вооружение, когда Уддет не смог зайти ему в хвост. Надо бы найти достоверные данный по виражу обоих.
    Да Роман, не смейся, оторвался в пикировании, я же не все описал, он у меня на хвосте сидел, градусов 90, вышел из виража и вниз, а я пока развернулся до него прка начал разгонятся он на Д30 и улетел.
    А по поводу Бетти, так то что она делала у меня челюсть отвисла, я уж подумал, что у меня иконки глючат, и это не бетти, а 110.
     
  17. Bobby

    Bobby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,902
    Location:
    St.-Peterburg, Russia
    Столько времени потратил на поиск времени установившегося виража, а нашел только упоминание, что единственным приимуществом Р-38 перед испытанным англечанами 190А3 Фабера был меньшее время установившегося виража на низкой скорости. :(. Ни каких цифр.
     
  18. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Это из Фарнборо по поводу аэроплана Арнима Фабера, ошибочно севшего на английской базе 23/06/1942.
    Двигатель BMW801Dg - первых серий.
    Спасибо Медведеву.

    Fw 190 vs Spitfire Mk VB

    The Fw 190 was compared with an operational Spitfire Mk VB for speed and allround manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000
    ft.

    The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:-

    At 2,000 ft (610 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph (40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB At 3,000 ft (915 m) the Fw 190 is
    30-35 mph (48-56 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB At 5,000 ft (1525 m) the Fw 190 is 25 mph (40 km/h) faster than the
    Spitfire Mk VB At 9,000 ft (2744 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph (40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB At 15,000 ft (4573
    m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph (32 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB At 18,000 ft (5488 m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph (32 km/h) faster
    than the Spitfire Mk VB At 21,000 ft (6400 m) the Fw 190 is 20-25 mph (32-40 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB

    Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are
    approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions
    the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). With both aircraft flying at high cruising
    speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.

    Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

    Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when
    the Spitfire can guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must
    obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll
    enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in
    following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It was found that if
    the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was sighted
    when well out of range.

    Fw 190 vs Spitfire Mk IX

    The Focke Wulf 190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire Mk IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to
    25,000 ft. The Mk IX, at most heights, is slightly superior in speed, and the approximate differences in speeds at various
    heights are as follows:-

    At 2,000 ft (610 m) the Fw 190 is 7-8 mph (11-13 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk IX At 5,000 ft (1524 m) the Fw 190 and
    the Spitfire Mk IX are approximately the same At 8,000 ft (2440 m) the Spitfire Mk IX is 8 mph (13 km/h) faster than the Fw
    190 At 15,000 ft (4573 m) the Spitfire Mk IX is 5 mph (8 km/h) faster than the Fw 190 At 18,000 ft (5488 m) the Fw 190 is 3
    mph (5 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk IX At 21,000 ft (6400 m) the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX are approximately the
    same At 25,000 ft (7620 m) the Spitfire Mk IX is 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) faster than the Fw 190

    Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous
    climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire Mk IX was
    slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 falls off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire Mk IX is
    increasing. When both aircraft were flying a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw
    190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly
    increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.

    Dive: The Fw 190 is faster in a dive than the Mk IX, particularly during the initial stage. The superiority is not so
    marked as with the Mk VB.

    Manoeuvrability: The Fw 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Mk IX except in turning circle, when it is out-turned without
    difficulty.The superior rate of roll of the Fw 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire Mk IX if attacked when in a turn by
    flicking over into a diving turn in the opposite direction and, as with the Spitfire Mk VB, the Mk IX had great difficulty
    in following this manoeuvre. The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire Mk IX under all conditions
    of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the
    Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

    Fw 19O vs Mustang Mk 1A

    The Fw 190 was compared with a fully operational Mustang Mk 1A for speed and allround performance up to 23,000 ft. There
    was little to choose between the aircraft in speed at all heights except between 10,000 and 15,000 ft, where the Mustang
    was appreciably faster. Approximate differences were as follows:

    At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 2 mph (3 km/h) faster than the Mustang At 5,000 ft (1525 m) the Mustang is 5 mph (8 km/h)
    faster than the Fw 190 At 10,000 ft (3050 m) the Mustang is 15 mph (24 km/h) faster than the Fw 190 At 20,000 ft (6100 m)
    the Fw 190 is 5 mph Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Mustang Mk 1A at all heights. The best
    climbing speed for the Mustang is approximately 10 mph (16 km/h) slower than that for the Fw 190; the angle is not nearly so
    steep and the rate of climb is considerably inferior. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb after a fast dive, the
    inferiority in the initial stage of the climb is not so marked, but if the climb is continued the Fw 190 draws away rapidly.

    Dive: Comparative dives have shown that there is little to choose between the two aircraft and, if anything, the Mustang is
    slightly faster in a prolonged dive.

    Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than of the Mustang except in turning circles where the
    Mustang is superior. In the rolling plane at high speed the Mustang compares more favourably with the Fw 190 than does the
    Spitfire. The acceleration of the Fw 190 under all conditions of flight is slightly better than that of the Mustang and this
    becomes more marked when both aircraft are cruising at low speed. When the Fw 190 was attacked by the Mustang in a turn, the
    usual manoeuvre of flicking into a diving turn in the opposite direction was not so effective against the Mustang as against
    the Spitfire, particularly if the aircraft were flying at high speed. The fact that the engine of the Mustang does not cut
    during the application of negative 'g proved a great asset, and gave the Mustang a reasonable chance of following the Fw 190
    and shooting it down.

    Fw 190 vs P-38F Lightning

    The Fw 190 was compared with an operational P-38F flown by an experienced US Army Air Force pilot. The two aircraft were
    compared for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 23,000 ft. The Fw 190 was superior in speed at all heights
    up to 22,000 ft, where the two aircraft were approximately the same. The approximate differences in speeds are as follows:

    At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 15 mph (24 km/h) faster than the P-38F At 8,000 ft (2440 m) the Fw 190 is 15 mph (24
    km/h) faster than the P-38F At 15,000 ft (4573 m) the Fw 190 is 5-8 mph (8-13 km/h) faster than the P-38F At 23,000 ft (7010
    m) the P-38F is 6-8 mph (9-13 km/h) faster than the Fw 190

    Climb: The climb of the P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15,000 ft. Above this height the climb of the
    P-38F improves rapidly until at 20,000 ft [6010 m] it becomes superior.The best climbing speed for the P-38F is about 20 mph
    (32 km/h) less than that of the Fw 190 and the angle approximately the same. The initial rate of climb of the Fw 190, either
    from level flight or a dive, is superior to that of the P-38F at all heights below 20,000 ft and above this height the climb
    of the P-38F becomes increasingly better.

    Dive: Comparative dives proved the Fw 190 to be better, particularly in the initial stage. During prolonged dives the
    P-38F, on occasion, was slowly gaining on the Fw 190, but in combat it is unlikely that the P-38F would have time to catch
    up, before having to break off the attack.

    Manoeuvrability: The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P-38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the
    Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph (225 km/h), at
    which speed it can carry out a very tight turn, which the Fw 190 cannot follow. The acceleration of the two aircraft was
    compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects. When the Fw 190 'bounced' the P-38F and was seen when over
    1,000 yards away, the pilot's best manoeuvre was to go into a diving turn and, if it found the Fw 190 was catching it up, to
    pull up into a spiral climb, flying at its lowest possible speed.

    Далее вольный пересказ, который я видел в монографии Медведя о ФВ-190.

    =================================section===================================
    /.../ 23 июня 1942 /.../ потерял ориентировку /.../ Считая, что он
    находится над территорией оккупированной Франции, Фабер совершил посадку на
    первом же подвернувшемся аэродроме. Так в руки англичан попал совершенно
    исправный FW190A-3 (двигатель новый? какой? прим. -exec-). Самолёт был
    немедленно переправлен в центр боевого применения в Дансфорде, где он
    прошёл совместные испытания с некоторыми из истребителей союзников. О том,
    насколько серьёзного противника получила ВВС Великобритании в лице FW190,
    говорят следующие характеристики.

    На высотах 200-300м FW190 на 40-48км/ч быстроходнее "Спитфайра" VB, на
    высоте 900м на 48-56км/ч, на высотах 1500-2700м - на 40-48км/ч. Минимальная
    разность скоростей - 30-32км/ч в пользу FW190 наблюдалась на высотах
    4500-5500м, а выше FW190 был быстроходнее "Спитфайр" VB на всех высотах,
    при этом максимальная вертикальная скорость на высоте 7500м у FW190 была
    примерно на 2.3м/ч больше, чем у англичанина. В пикировании FW190 легко
    догонял "Спитфайр". По маневренности он так же имел преимущество за
    исключением серийных виражей, когда англичанин легко заходил в хвост
    германскому истребителю. FW190 быстрее разгонялся при любых начальных
    условиях, и это обстоятельство широко использовали немецкие лётчики в
    боях...

    Были выполнены совместные испытания FW190 и варианта "Мустанга" IA,
    оснащенного двигателем "Аллисон" V-1710 (V-1710-39, он же V-1710F3R. без
    турбонагнетателя. 1100л.с взлётных мащей. прим. -exec-), который в то время
    поступал в английские Королевские ВВС в качестве истребителя-разведчика
    (так как Аллисон не смог удержать Mustang Mk.IA в роли истребителя ПВО). По
    скорости и характеристикам пикирования "Мустанг" IA был близок к FW190, за
    исключением диапазона высот от 3000 до 4500м, где "Мустанг" IA был
    быстроходнее в среднем примерно на 24км/ч. Однако скороподъёмность и
    вертикальная маневренность у FW190 была существенно лучше, зато он уступал
    "Мустангу" IA в бою на виражах.

    Двухмоторный P-38F "Лайтнинг", начавший поступать на вооружение
    действовавших на Европейском ТВД американских авиагрупп, так же был оценен
    в совместных полётах с FW190. До высоты 6700м нмецкий истребитель был
    быстроходнее, а выше этого уровня превосходство в скорости переходило к
    P-38F. Разгонные характеристики, скороподъёмность и скорость пикирования у
    FW190 были лучше, чем у "Лайтнинга". При небольших скоростях полёта P-38F
    имел меньшее время и радиус виража по сравнению с немцем.

    "Спитфайр" IX, оборудованный мотором "Мерлин" 61 с двухскоростным
    нагнетателем, летом 1942г. был новейшим истребителем Королевских ВВС. На
    высотах до 6700м по горизонтали скорости и скороподъёмности оба самолёта
    были примерно равны, а на больших высотах "Спитфайр" IX получал некоторое
    преимущество. FW190 лучше пикировал и имел лучшую вертикальную
    маневренность, уступая "девятке" в маневренности горизонтальной.

    (самое нужное для тебя подпорчено. прим. -exec-)
    Когда дошла очередь до сравнительных совместных полётов FW190 с "Тайфуном",
    мотор германского истребителя уже работал неважно и испытания не были
    окончены. "Тайфун", в то время так же новейший английский истребитель, сам
    страдал от многочисленных недоработок. Самолёт ещё не был принят к
    крупносерийному производству, но и в том виде, в каком он проходил
    сравнительные испытания, он оказался несколько быстроходнее своего
    немецкого оппонента на всех высотах, имел большую скорость пикирования и
    лучшие разгонные характеристики. По горизонтальной маневренности самолёты
    были практичеси равноценны, а скороподъёмность и вертикальный маневр
    оказались лучшими у FW190.

    /... а что такое FW-190A-3? не знаю. посмотрим в ретроспективе.../

    Пока Королевские ВВС изучали FW190A-3, эта модификация была заменена на
    сборочных линиях новейшим вариантом A-4 с мотором BMW801D-2, оснащённым
    водометаноловой системой форсирования мощности MW50, предназначенной для
    применения на малых и средних высотах (на самом деле подразумевается
    возможность установки этой системы, а широко она применяется только с
    FW-190A-8. Это очевидно далее по тексту книги. прим. -exec-). Наиболее
    заметным внешним отличием A-4 от A-3 было появление ультракоротковолновой
    радиостанции FuG16Z с её небольшой антенной мачтой на киле вместо
    коротковолновой рации FuG7. Помимо FuG16Z, истребитель оснащался
    коротковолновой радиостанцией FuG25, способной работать в режиме
    радиополукомпаса.

    Заводские доработочные комплекты для модификации A-4 предусматривали
    следующие варианты: /.../
     
  19. Bobby

    Bobby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,902
    Location:
    St.-Peterburg, Russia
    Большое спасибо exec :cheers:
    Из приведенного отрывка можно сделать несколько выводов:
    1. на скорости 140MPH P38-F мог перевиражить 190A-3? который в свою очередь, практически не отличается от 190А4.
    2. А вот это про Тайвун интересно:
    . Это, что, правда? Я посмотрел на http://scores.wbfree.net/speeds/ там видно, что 190 разгоняется быстрее. Причем сильно. За первые 10 секунд он выигрывает 20км/ч
     
  20. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    цитирую нашу с Вайлдом Тайфуновскую (по разработке тиффи то есть) переписку дальше.


    Исходя из этого источника и из информации, возникшей на иностранном форуме
    (мы же не станем отрицать поголовно всю инфу, что они постят, тем более,
    если они показывают тонкое знание материала)
    images/smilies/Forum10/HTML/000923.html
    получается, что существовало два типа FW-190A-3:

    *первый с двигателем BMW-801Dg. Этот двигатель сменил BMW801C-2,
    установленный на версии A-2. На самом деле это был не до конца доведенный
    BMW-801D, что указывает индекс "g" (пояснения на форуме). С таким
    двигателем выпущено iirc сотня-другая A-3. Ребята с форума утверждают, что
    мнение о BMW-801Dg на всех FW-190A-3 есть что-то вроде стереотипа, или
    цепочного цитирования ошибки.

    *вторая основная серия (всего A-3 выпущено 580) всё-таки дождалась
    окончательной версии двигателя, уже переобозначенной как BMW-801D-2. Этот
    двигатель оставался на всех FW-190 вплоть до FW-190D-9, с примочками вроде
    MW-50 или GM-1. Если не считать радиоборудования (в первом приближении
    пренебрежём изменением массы самолёта), нереализованного потенциала MW-50,
    не применённого разнообразного подвесного вооружения, что использовалась на
    A-4, то в остальном мы получаем FW-190A-4.

    =================================section===================================

    Цитата о сравнении FW-190A-3 с Typhoon слаба в трёх отношениях. Во-первых,
    пока что нет информации о двигателе самолёта адъютанта группы III/JG2
    лейтенанта Арнима Фабера. Это мог быть с одинаковым успехом и BMW-801Dg, и
    BMW-801D-2.

    Ещё даты? A-3 серийно производится с начала 1942 года, или, как уточняет
    другой несерьёзный истоник - глубоко детализированная wargame "Advanced
    Daysenryaku 98 - Storm over Europe" - серийные экземпляры FW-190A-3
    начинают сходить с линии в апреле 1942, а FW-190A-4 в августе 1942.

    Помогут ли тебе эти даты, сказать не могу. Есть разные логические домыслы,
    указывающие на тот или иной двигатель. Так что лучше всё-таки попытаться
    узнать двигатель непосредственно машины Фабера.

    Во-вторых, Медведь упоминает, что к моменту испытаний Typhoon ещё не
    избавился от детских болезней. Я не смогу сейчас назвать какие были
    изменения веса, аэродинамики и ЛТХ с процессом доводки Typhoon до состояния
    массовости.

    В-третьих, Тайфун оснащался двигателями Сейбр 2а, 2б, 2ц. Как это влияло на
    ЛТХ и по каким соображениям конструкторы меняли двигатель
    (следующая/параллельная модификация?) мне не известно. Какой двигатель
    работал на Typhoon в сравнительных испытаниях с FW-190A-3 Фабера тоже не
    ясно.

    =================================section===================================

    Интересна заметка -illo- на счёт "слабого ролла" пары Typhoon/Tempest.
    Постинг можно найти по ключевым словам на иностранном форуме и вытрясти из
    -illo- основания для такого утверждения. Могу взять этот вопрос на себя,
    если хочешь.

    =================================section===================================

    Рекомендую законтачить с Яковым "Jak" Филатовым по поводу Тайфуна. У него
    на свалке может валяться неутилизированный экземпляр-другой. Свалку
    помнишь? Может метров сто занимала или больше - взглядом не окинуть. Если
    обновишь мне адрес свалки - буду благодарен.

    =================================section===================================

    В завершение этой скуки еще кусочек инфы

    190speed(snake-prohor).jpg
    http://www.mental.khv.ru/military/avia/FW190/190speed.jpg
    Эта картинка появилась на общем форуме от snake, который ссылается на
    некоего Прохора, а может быть и prohor. Топик чего-то там о недостатках
    FW-190A-8 или FW-190A-8/R8. Топик перехлетнулся с другим на сходную тему на
    иностранном форуме.

    Картинка похожа на опубликованную Медведем.

    source.jpg
    Отношение этого клочка к предыдущей картинке не установлено.
    Но на всякий случай.

    =================================section===================================

    Другого под рукой нету. Может вообще нету - не помню.

    Бля. Пойду спа-а-ть, а вышлю утром с работы. Не скучай.