Test roll rate fw 190A3 Bf109F4 La5 LaGG3

[LukeFF]

38 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

FW190A might roll close to historical values, maybe should test it against the chart posted above. If it does not match then there is something to check.

 

And what, pray tell, is wrong with the roll test data the developers used?

[SJ_Butcher]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

And what, pray tell, is wrong with the roll test data the developers used?

Some people is leaving the sim because of this nonsense, I will never ever use data from USSR, full of propaganda and not real data, I quit the game for the same reasson, barely play it

[SAS_Storebror]

54 minutes ago, UK_Falkland said:

I will never ever use data from USSR, full of propaganda and not real data, I quit the game for the same reasson, barely play it

 

Essentially what you're saying is that you'd only want to play the game if the devs would believe in your favourite data sources.

If you have any that is...

Your choice. I don't need to think that it's clever, do I?

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited May 23, 2018 by SAS_Storebror

[SJ_Butcher]

21 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Essentially what you're saying is that you'd only want to play the game if the devs would believe in your favourite data sources.

If you have any that is...

Your choice. I don't need to think that it's clever, do I?

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Doesnt matter at all, my friends stoped playing the game too, and theres not a single source better than naca

[SAS_Storebror]

Maybe I didn't read what you've read, if so please give me a hint.

The devs did use NACA charts for the 190 because they were available. That's what I get from Han's post.

The devs did not use NACA charts for the Lagg or Yak - probably because there aren't any.

Which, if that's correct, leads me to quote Luke:

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

And what, pray tell, is wrong with the roll test data the developers used?

 

Cheers!

Mike

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, UK_Falkland said:

Some people is leaving the sim because of this nonsense, I will never ever use data from USSR, full of propaganda and not real data, I quit the game for the same reasson, barely play it

 

Bye-bye!

[SJ_Butcher]

5 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Maybe I didn't read what you've read, if so please give me a hint.

The devs did use NACA charts for the 190 because they were available. That's what I get from Han's post.

The devs did not use NACA charts for the Lagg or Yak - probably because there aren't any.

Which, if that's correct, leads me to quote Luke:

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Nope the naca chart of fw190 shows a clmax of 1,51 in game 1,33

[SAS_Storebror]

4 minutes ago, UK_Falkland said:

Nope the naca chart of fw190 shows a clmax of 1,51 in game 1,33

 

Are we still talking about the roll rate or are you following a different agenda?

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, UK_Falkland said:

Some people is leaving the sim because of this nonsense, I will never ever use data from USSR, full of propaganda and not real data, I quit the game for the same reasson, barely play it

 

Wait, the developers used data from NACA for the 190's roll rate. That's hardly propaganda. But hey, have it your way. No one's forcing you to stick around.

Edited May 23, 2018 by LukeFF

[BraveSirRobin]

I applaud Falkland for standing by his principles and leaving.  Assuming that he actually leaves.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Let's try to keep us on the topic. I do not like to see him blocked

Edited May 23, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

LukeFF. Devs have shown no documents whatsoever with data up to date, whatever the reason is, to back up their decisions in modelling planes. None. Community has shown several in many discussions. 

 

But back to topic. RAE tested FW190A-3 extensively against Spitfire Mk.V and it is well documented and available easily. Has detailed text, many pictures and graphs showing the performance of the 190. Both planes are in the game,so it would be easy to verify as well. 

 

For La-5FN there is the Rechlin test by Germans against the FW190A and Bf109G. It has comparison on controls of the planes and quite simple to find that La-5FN had stiffer controls over 190. And quite clear how 190 is superiour over Lada in roll, latter being slightly better than 109.

 

So what the discussions is about? In game situation is awkward, to put it mildly. If you take the time to read the various tests and reports, russian ones too, it is not hard to see something is out of place. Bug or an error? That is what people want to learn, not to blame devs of bias or favoritism. 

 

 

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

LukeFF. Devs have shown no documents whatsoever with data up to date, whatever the reason is, to back up their decisions in modelling planes. None. Community has shown several in many discussions. 

 

Bullcrap. When people were bitching about the La-5FN's performance, @Gavrick politely stepped in and showed an excerpt of the data they used. But, of course, that meant nothing to most of the objectors. 

 

 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

 

LukeFF. No one is complaining about the reason for the climb, the final speed of the FN. The question is rolling rate. What I most lack in Box in relation to the old 1946 is the distinct lack of characteristics of one aircraft in relation to another aircraft (excluding climb rate, final speed and radius of curve).

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[s9723]

21 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

For La-5FN there is the Rechlin test by Germans against the FW190A and Bf109G. It has comparison on controls of the planes and quite simple to find that La-5FN had stiffer controls over 190. And quite clear how 190 is superiour over Lada in roll, latter being slightly better than 109.

 

The captured La5FN takes 4 sec to make a roll at 280 mph.  A better condition airframe may roll faster.

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 So at 280mph La-5FN rolls 90deg/s. Fw190A at same speed, according to the chart above, rolls 143deg/s. Quite a difference right there when compared to the game performance. At lower speeds LA-5FN would roll a bit better which quite much correlates with the info on about 100-120deg/s roll rate peak compared to Fw190A peak of 165deg/s. Add to this Rechlin test where Bf109G was said to be only slightly worse than La-5FN with it's 90-100deg/s roll rate. Quite a clear picture to me.

Edited May 25, 2018 by LLv34_Flanker

[unreasonable]

Are you comparing like with like?  I would take "a roll takes barely 4 seconds" as referring to the total time elapsed for a roll starting from level flight. The chart from which you quote 143 deg/sec explicitly states that this is the rolling speed achievable. Ie not the same as the average speed achieved over a roll, as there is no inertia to overcome. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Funny, really. Fw190A still outrolls La-5FN no matter how you look at it. RAE test also corresponds with this, Fw190A could initiate a roll fast and rolled fast due it's well balanced controls. Numbers do not lie, so let me put it here again. According to tests and sources Bf109 rolled 90-100deg/s, La-5FN 100-120deg/s and Fw190A 165deg/s as peak value. But again, why should one care really :P

[unreasonable]

Not funny - just pointing out that you are not helping your case when you misrepresent the data. 90 degees/sec (first post) =/= 100-120 degrees/sec (second post). 

 

I do not care what the outcome is- not sure that I have ever even flown the BoX FN, and for sure never in MP.

 

My motivation is purely to help you improve your persuasion skills, which are sorely lacking, out of pure altruism. Because I am such a nice person. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by unreasonable

[Bilbo_Baggins]

10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Not funny - just pointing out that you are not helping your case when you misrepresent the data. 90 degees/sec (first post) =/= 100-120 degrees/sec (second post). 

 

I do not care what the outcome is- not sure that I have ever even flown the BoX FN, and for sure never in MP.

 

My motivation is purely to help you improve your persuasion skills, which are sorely lacking, out of pure altruism. Because I am such a nice person. 

 

You're not helping anything [Edited]

Somewhere, sometime in history, you would have thought the design and performance of the incredible LaGG-3/LA5 airframe's ailerons had been detailed- which evident here in sim are the fastest rolling piston engine fighters of WW2. However, where are any sources that allude to these characteristics?  In multiplayer we have these airframes spinning around on the ailerons like Extra 300L stunt planes; the BF109 is not even comparable on the longitudinal axis. Once again, as LLv34_Flanker pointed out before, the problem is not the FW190, rather, it's the seemingly unsubstantiated performance of the Lagg-3/La5 roll performance that attention is being called to here.

 

The Devs have not shown any basis whatsoever for the exceptional longitudinal performance on these airframes, and people are asking the obvious. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Bearcat

[unreasonable]

7 hours ago, Mcdaddy said:

 

You're not helping anything but proving yourself as a highly dislikeable, world-class troll.

 

Somewhere, sometime in history, you would have thought the design and performance of the incredible LaGG-3/LA5 airframe's ailerons had been detailed- which evident here in sim are the fastest rolling piston engine fighters of WW2. However, where are sources that allude to these characteristics? In multiplayer we have these airframes spinning around like Extra 300L stunt planes; the BF109 is not even comparable on the longitudinal axis. Once again, as LLv34_Flanker pointed out before, the problem is not the FW190, rather, it's the seemingly unsubstantiated performance of the Lagg-3/La5 roll performance that attention is being called to here.

 

The Devs have not shown any basis whatsoever for this exceptional longitudinal performance on these airframes.

 

On the contrary, the mere fact that you have replied to this with what is almost a coherent argument demonstrates that I am indeed helping people develop their persuasion skills.  I am flattered that you find me world class.  Mind you, being disliked [Edited] I take as a badge of honour: so maybe I should not be too flattered either.

 

Nevertheless,  at some point all of the whiners have to face up to a fundamental fact: the developers put out what they consider to be their best estimate, and if you do not like it it is up to you to prove them wrong to their satisfaction. It is not down to them to prove to you, to your satisfaction, that they are right.

 

If you do not like that, tough luck. Of course you are free to endlessly rehash the same points, sometimes more cogently, sometimes less: but then others are also free to point out errors or omissions in your posts. 

 

Chillax.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Bearcat

[JtD]

The excellent roll rate of the La comes from the geometry of the La's lateral control, which is superior to that of the Fw190. Smaller wing span, larger stick travel, larger aileron angles. No one needs detailed documentation to see that, it's very evident. And we're talking about advantages in the region of 50%, depending on circumstances.

 

I've said it before, the Fw190 ailerons were brilliant in terms of effectiveness, which, based on soft data and anecdotal evidence, more than offset the geometric advantages of the La. But until there's detailed data on the La available, we should at least note that the devs modelled the La ailerons with a considerably lower effectiveness, which puts the La roll rate in game into the realm of believable (yes, it does, believe it or not). If we think it's still optimistic, which I do, we need to find sources with hard, detailed data. In the meantime, we can still give the devs credit for not simply using geometry based data. I find ranting, occasionally bordering insulting, very unproductive and also unjustified.

 

Please look for data instead.

[Holtzauge]

Aeronautical engineers are not stupid and if was as simple as a problem of geometry and stick travel to get good roll performance then lots of WW2 fighter would have had good roll performance. However, very few did and the fact remains that Fw-190 was in a class of its own.

 

The challenge of balancing ailerons involves trying to get the ailerons balanced at low speed as well as high speed and avoiding overbalancing in either regime which is not as simple as it sounds. Compounding the problem are different balancing results at different angles of attack and Mach effects in the high speed range. No way you can simply look at the size of the ailerons, stick travel and say how good the roll performance is going to be. WW2 engineers spent enormous effort experimenting with different overhangs, aileron leading edges, bevels, internal balances and differentials to get it right and to think that you can judge the rolling performance just by eyeballing and looking at a drawing is a delusion.

 

Anecdotal evidence can sometimes be misleading but really, if Russian aircraft rolling performance was better than the Fw-190 as it is in-game currently then I’m sure at least some Eastern front pilots would have mentioned this in their memoirs. IIRC then we don’t have any such anecdotes and using Occam’s razor this is most likely due to them not rolling better than the Fw-190 and nothing else.

 

Sure, it will probably be difficult to get this changed because we lack the data to prove so but that does not hinder a sanity check and as far as I’m concerned this is a fail right now. In addition, the call for data can actually go both ways and we know the Fw-190 was a documented top performer in this regard and unless someone produces data to the contrary I will continue to believe so irrespective of how this is modeled in-game.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

41 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Sure, it will probably be difficult to get this changed because we lack the data to prove so but that does not hinder a sanity check and as far as I’m concerned this is a fail right now. In addition, the call for data can actually go both ways and we know the Fw-190 was a documented top performer in this regard and unless someone produces data to the contrary I will continue to believe so irrespective of how this is modeled in-game.

Sometimes it is difficult to find data on certain aircraft. About roll rate, besides the German test with La5, is there other data?
As JtD tested and put it on the chart, the fw190 runs worse at slower speeds and better at higher speeds. The difficulty in dogfighting is that most fights happen at lower speeds where it further harms the Fw190

Thanks JtD for the test

Edited May 25, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[Dakpilot]

How many anecdotes are there of Russian pilots complaining of slow roll rate iof VVS fighters after coming from I-16, itself extremely good in the roll category, also there is no question there was combat between fighter versions of FW-190 on Eastern front but its reputation is no where near the same as on Western front where roll is concerned, anecdotes and lack of can work both ways. 

F4 Corsair has roll rate equal or greater? than FW-190 but is never talked about as much..

 

Pretty sure that at speed (where it historically operated ) the FW-190 has the advantage in roll rate in game

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

3 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Pretty sure that at speed (where it historically operated ) the FW-190 has the advantage in roll rate in game

Nobody is claiming that fw190 does not roll well at high speed. This has already been said many times. The question is in other aircraft that roll well. As I said. the graph that JtD posted with data and what we have in the game, the fw190 rolls less at lower speeds, and rolls at higher speeds. In a dogfight usually the speed tends to get lower and thus, hinder the Fw190

[Dr_Molem]

11 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Pretty sure that at speed (where it historically operated ) the FW-190 has the advantage in roll rate in game

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

A serious question for you... Do you even play this game ?

[Dakpilot]

But historically did FW-190 dogfights actually commonly degenerate to such low speeds as we see In sim combat, from most RL combat reports I have read this did not really happen often. 

 

And yes  I find the FW-190 to have great response at higher speeds where it shines, which tally with JTD's tests, but only my personal feeling, I have not conducted tests, which is why I said "pretty sure" 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

The Fw190 rolls well at higher speeds. That's not the problem. The JtD chart shows this in the game, even more on the optimistic side. At lower speeds it rolls less in the game than the actual data. La5-La5Fn-LaGG roll very well and we have no data to compare besides the German test on la5.

[JtD]

11 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Aeronautical engineers are not stupid and if was as simple as a problem of geometry and stick travel to get good roll performance then lots of WW2 fighter would have had good roll performance.

 

So you're saying that Fw gave the 190 exceptionally large ailerons for no reason at all? NACA disagrees, and it's their chart that appears to be the accepted reference.

 

FWIW:

- the size of the La-5 ailerons is about 80% that of the Fw, direct impact on roll rate, negative at low speed,

- the span of the La-5 is 93% that of the Fw190, direct impact on roll rate, positive at all speeds

- aileron deflection of the La-5 is 45% larger than that of the Fw190, 6% larger on the La-5FN, positive (with quirks) at low speed

- stick travel of the La-5 is about 50% larger than that of the Fw190, direct impact on control forces, positive at high speed

- both use Frise ailerons with about 28% balance area, no obvious difference

Unknown:

- control linkage effects (different for La-5 and La-5FN)

- nose shape and gap effects of Frise balance, however, little effect on low speed performance, as it effects hinge moments, not lift coefficients (different for La-5 and La-5FN)

- wing twist, however, little effect on low speed performance (different at latest when the wooden spars were changed somewhere in La-5 development)

 

Outside of the quirks of the extremely large aileron deflection of the La-5, which I suppose was changed for a reason, what low speed (100m/s) roll rates are we looking at (ballpark according to NACA)?

 

Fw190: 122°/s (132°/s in the chart)

La-5: 155°/s

La-5FN: 113°/s

 

Difference between my Fw190 ballpark and the NACA chart figure is that mine is the ballpark, and theirs is the complete calculation verified by flight tests. Still only a 10% difference. You can run that calculation for all aircraft in the chart and, with the exception of the abysmal Typhoon, end up in a 10% - 20% deviation range. The La-5, as modelled in game, deviates by -15% from the ballpark. Meaning I can not find a fault in it, even though I tried (yes, I'm biased here). Which brings me back the the conclusion above - we need better data.

 

How's the rolling performance of the La-5FN in game? How does it compare to the La-5? I conducted my tests before it was published. Aileron angles seem to have been reduced.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

Sure, in the low speed regime where the pilot can overcome the control forces and deflect the ailerons to the full then I agree you can probably get an idea of how well the aircraft rolled up to the "roof" of the doghouse chart. Problem is where is the point of the roof? How do you figure that out by visual inspection? My point is that where the point of the roof gets placed and how quickly the roll rate degrades after that is the product of painstaking research (and maybe an element of luck?) to get the good performance the Fw-190 had. For example look at the extensive tests they did in the US on the Dauntless (NACA–WR-W-81). Countless of different hinge line positions, nose shapes, tabs and planforms tested (Look at the figures on pages 51-62 in the report). If it was easy to balance out control forces on the drawing board then they never would have needed to do all those flight tests.

 

I’m not saying I know for a 100% fact that the Russian planes in-game that roll better than the Fw-190 didn’t do that IRL. I don’t have proof of that. I just find it highly unlikely but if someone was to provide data where the Russian fighters come out at the top on the NACA chart above, way over the Spitfire, P-47, P-51, Me-109, P-40, P-63, F-4, F-6  etc. etc. then I will of course bow to the data. However, until such data surfaces, I’m a strong believer that Professor Kurt Tank is still king of the hill with his Butcher bird.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Holtzauge

[JtD]

Well, I've gone through a thousand pages on Frise ailerons and with the data available, there's no conclusive trend on why the Fw190 would be a lot better than the La-5. The differences are a slightly blunter nose and a little bit larger gaps on the La-5, the gaps on the (late) La-5FN being more in line with Fw190 dimensions. Looking at dozens of wind tunnel test data charts, the differences that cannot be derived in a simple manner and included in the ballpark estimate (i.e. read from empirically determined charts) are marginal and will mostly effect handling (overbalance, stress on control linkage etc.). The early La-5 didn't handle very well, I suppose part of of this were the ailerons (with their large travel).

 

At high speed, yes, I don't know the picture. A major effect I forgot to list above is ballooning of control surfaces, apparently a big problem for many types, a small problem for the Fw190. But to offset the disadvantages of whichever kind the La-5 might have, the pilot can exert 50% higher forces owing to the longer stick travel. That's significant, even if owing to the progressive nature of Frise aileron control forces, this may only translate to a 10% advantage in roll rate all other things being equal.

 

Also, in comparison to the aircraft you mention, the La-5 has the advantage of a smaller wingspan. Remember, two identical aircraft of different scale achieve the same helix angle. But their roll rate is different in direct relation to their wing span. So in comparison with say a P-40 or Spitfire, the La-5 has a 15% built-in advantage owing to the smaller dimensions of the aircraft. In other words, if the La-5 rolled significantly worse than the types you name, the Soviet engineers would have needed to be complete idiots. Just look at what clipping the wingtips of the Spitfire did for it, with no change to the ailerons as such. Clipping the wings of a Spit brings it pretty close in dimensions to the La-5, btw. Just food for thought.

 

Trivia: The Fw190 used three different types of ailerons in service. These are described in the January 1944 manual, part 3 of Fw190A-5 and A-6 (referenced also in June 1944 manual for later models), if anyone is interested.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

Sure, by visual inspection you can’t see much difference between some ailerons and they look deceptively similar. The reason I linked the Dauntless report was just to show that and how minute the tuning is on the front end of Frise type ailerons: Many are so small you would probably need a caliper or a template to see that they are different. Also note the slight change on the tip of the aileron planform and the experimentation with different tabs, hinge line positions, gaps and trailing edges. The takeaway from this is that not all ailerons are created equal even if they look similar and that the engineers experimented with minute changes to tune, i.e. there is no way you will be able to judge the stick force characteristics by eyeballing an aileron.

 

I have also read a lot about the quest for improved roll in WW2 (maybe not a thousand pages though) and what I have learned is that it seems extremely difficult to marry low stick forces at higher speeds without overbalancing a lower speeds. The torsion bar spring tab system perfected by the British is an example of an ingenious system that to a large extent finally solved this problem. Regarding the stick throw being 50% better in the La-5, this will indeed be an advantage but only for similarly balanced ailerons and if one aileron is better balanced than the other, those 50% will be eaten up quickly as the dynamic pressure and forces build up with the square of the speed. IMHO there is no way around it: Balancing ailerons was an art, probably with an element of luck built in and I think the report I linked above shows that: There is no one size fits all or free lunch here and you have to tinker around with a lot of different parameters to get the balance right. We know the Fw-190 managed to do this and if it was as simple as copying the general layout then I’m sure we would have seen a lot of late war fighters up there with the Fw-190 by 1945. Only we don’t. At least none of the Western allies managed to do that without resorting to spring tabs and while I hold Russian aeronautical engineering in the highest regards I don’t see any evidence that they fared any better.

 

TBH, I think LLv34_Flanker summed up the situation pretty good above and I agree with his conclusions: There is nothing that indicates that the La-5 was better than the Fw-190 and If I were to take an educated guess it would be that his assessment that the La-5 came in somewhere between the Me-109 and Fw-190 is closer to the truth.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Holtzauge
Spelling

[JtD]

I happen to agree as well, I'm just looking facts supporting the guess, outside of a sketchy German test report of a captured aircraft. There are lots of strong opinions floating around, surely there must be more data?

[Bilbo_Baggins]

On 5/27/2018 at 11:25 AM, JtD said:

, I'm just looking facts supporting the guess, outside of a sketchy German test report of a captured aircraft. There are lots of strong opinions floating around, surely there must be more data?

 

Yep, it would seem there must be a source out there if the devs are claiming the Lagg/LA to be some of the fastest rolling WW2 piston engine fighters. Considering nothing of detail can be read supporting the astonishing roll performance of these machines in-sim, it seems too big a claim to make without evidence.

 

It's a pity the devs haven't revealed their source for this as there are many folk who are interested in this surprising performance trait of these airframes. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[JtD]

With the control layout of the La-5 as far as determinable being far superior to that of the Fw190, we don't need more evidence for performance being good, we need evidence for it being bad. Or just more straight up facts.

[Ehret]

On 5/26/2018 at 4:24 PM, Holtzauge said:

We know the Fw-190 managed to do this and if it was as simple as copying the general layout then I’m sure we would have seen a lot of late war fighters up there with the Fw-190 by 1945. Only we don’t. At least none of the Western allies managed to do that without resorting to spring tabs and while I hold Russian aeronautical engineering in the highest regards I don’t see any evidence that they fared any better.

 

The FW managed this in a big part due streamlined wings - both the area and wingspan were smaller than in western opposition. Cannons were located closely to the fuselage too which helped. There aren't any fuel tanks in wings, either.

[JtD]

3 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Cannons were located closely to the fuselage too which helped. There aren't any fuel tanks in wings, either.

 

Which still has no impact on maximum rolling velocity, only on rolling acceleration. Rolling velocity is a purely aerodynamic issue, you could fill up your wingtips with lead and it would have no impact on maximum rolling velocity.

 

Small related anecdote: The P-38 (initially) wasn't the best rolling aircraft, even when looking at peak rolling velocity. However, this was not a source for complaints. What it was abysmal at and what was complained about, however, was rolling acceleration. With the masses distributed as they were, pilots said that a they'd put in full control deflection, and had to wait noticeably for the aircraft to react. Allegedly, this was not just detrimental to overall combat capabilities, it was outright dangerous. If the P-38 pilot found himself bounced, he'd lose a second this way in a situation where fractions of a second count. It's claimed that many P-38 losses could have been avoided if it had had better roll acceleration. It will be interesting to see if that's going to be modelled.

[Panthera]

Having ailerons spanning all the way out to the tip of the wings like on the 190 also helps with roll rate. The La-5 still featured a small tip section that the ailerons didn't cover, which could help explain the lower roll rate.

 

The downside of having ailerons spanning all the way to the tip however is that they need to be precisely adjusted at all times or you risk premature stalling of the wing tips during turns, which I remember someone say was an issue during some of the RAE trials. 

[Ehret]

8 hours ago, JtD said:

It's claimed that many P-38 losses could have been avoided if it had had better roll acceleration. It will be interesting to see if that's going to be modelled.

 

The P-38 had more issues when ambushed... To raise power quickly turbos and engines demanded strict procedures to not blow up. Besides, bigger frame is easier to hit and the twin boom identified self.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Ehret