Jump to content
Porkins

P-38 Lightning Speculation Thread

Recommended Posts

On 3/26/2018 at 4:13 PM, Falkenstein said:

 

  Yes, we are getting the P-38L, the "final and definitive production version of the Lightning". 

 

 

When did this change? I've seen a couple of comments about the P38-L being modeled recently but the last quote I saw from the devs was in DD #218 where they showed the WIP pics and stated it was the P-38J-25 they were modelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

When did this change? I've seen a couple of comments about the P38-L being modeled recently but the last quote I saw from the devs was in DD #218 where they showed the WIP pics and stated it was the P-38J-25 they were modelling.

 

It didn't change - it's still the J-25 that's being built. Ls weren't used in the ETO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 Ls weren't used in the ETO.

I don't think that is right



Lockheed P-38 Gung Ho

Quote

Lockheed P-38L Gung Ho, pilot Lt Col Chickering, 367th Fighter Group, Belgium January 1945

 



P-38L Lightning code F5-W of the 428th FS 474th Fighter Group

Quote

P-38L Lightning code F5-W of the 428th FS 474th Fighter Group

 

http://www.americanairmuseum.com/unit/455

 

Plenty of serial numbers in 474th FG correspond to P-38Ls

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

I've always loved the P-38. IMO I think it'll be owned by the 190s and 109s. It's high instantaneous turn rate doesn't worry me.

IMO these things will hurt it:

- Slow at low and medium alt

- Poor sustained turn rate due to poor power-to-weight ratio

- Poor acceleration (see above)

- Huge target

 

It's the first red plane that I find tempting to fly. Korny and I loved to fly it in the old game. It was very rewarding for our team.

 

I've never heard of it having a poor sustained turn, is this true? I've always heard it turned very well.

I read an interview a while back of Johannes Steinhoff and his opinions of the P-38 were very interesting compared to popular opinions.

 

As far as it being a huge target well I guess it is, but imo it's not much bigger than any other of the main American fighters and won't be much of an issue, especially with the way some online pilots shoot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

It didn't change - it's still the J-25 that's being built.

 

That’s what I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2018 at 3:35 PM, Hauksbee said:

Well, the Germans called it the "Fork-Tailed Devil".

 

No they didn't.

 

3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

I've always loved the P-38. IMO I think it'll be owned by the 190s and 109s. It's high instantaneous turn rate doesn't worry me.

 

It won't do clean sweeps of any server they're on, but I also don't think it will be half bad - even against late war german plane, when flown to it's strengths.

 

It all comes and goes with the engine-modelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No they didn't.

 

You should tell Martin Cardin that....

 

“NORTH AFRICA WAS WHERE the P-38 earned its name—Der gabelschwanz teufel.

The fork-tailed devil.

It took a while, though.”

 

And don’t forget to send a note to Lockheed

 

9-EF7-BF59-7572-4456-92-D9-81-C185-FB597

🙄

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Lockheed's wartime advertisements can be taken as an authoritative source on German aircraft nicknames.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It all comes and goes with the engine-modelling.

 

This.  Absolutely this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

No they didn't.

 

 

It won't do clean sweeps of any server they're on, but I also don't think it will be half bad - even against late war german plane, when flown to it's strengths.

 

It all comes and goes with the engine-modelling.

I just hope they model both of them !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I don't think that Lockheed's wartime advertisements can be taken as an authoritative source on German aircraft nicknames.

 

Yes, it could be a 1940’s urban myth. I thought the Lockheed add was about as good as it gets for verifying a 70 year old nickname though. It’s at least from the same decade.

 

I’ll see if I can find any actual verification that this was a colloquial term in Europe at the time. Caidin doesn’t get his sources wrong very often, and I think that’s the main source for it becoming a common term. There may be some interview comments here or there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual story behind the “fork tailed devil” tale is that a German pilot surrendered to US troops in Tunisia and hysterically pointing at P-38’s calling them fork tailed devils 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding supposed axis nicknames for allied aircraft:

Quote

The last of my Second World War examples is the name given to the distinctive Lockheed P-38, another aircraft designed as a heavy fighter (and arguably more effective in that role than the previous aircraft). Earliest reference is once again the latter half of 1943, in Popular Science magazine. Here (along with the Flight mag snippets posted above and countless websites/forums etc today) we see the power of the enthusiast to propagate what is essentially rumour, simply because it sounds powerful and macho, just like the other names given in this post. This time “Nazi pilots” are cited, but yet again, no individuals or other sources are named – it’s simply asserted with a good amount of relish, and a vaguely racist rendition of a hapless Japanese (note, not a German) pilot getting hosed by the “Devil”‘s guns. Perhaps tellingly, the Engineering News Record then claims that both German AND Japanese pilots use the term! This is clearly exaggeration at the least (assuming either one did use the name), if not total BS. Were the Axis powers conferring on their cowardly conventions for naming enemy aircraft?! If this too is a piece of wartime propaganda (created by press or military), the modern-day US Air Force is still buying it.

 

https://bshistorian.wordpress.com/tag/whistling-death/

 

I've got to agree with this. It seems unlikely that the Germans and Japanese would pick the same nickname for the P-38. Maybe a German once referred to the P-38 thus, but I'd like to see a proper historical source for it being a common term, rather than just a bit of allied wishful thinking/propaganda.

 

Nicknames for the enemy are generally disparaging, rather than implying supernatural powers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

Yes, it could be a 1940’s urban myth. I thought the Lockheed add was about as good as it gets for verifying a 70 year old nickname though. It’s at least from the same decade.

 

I’ll see if I can find any actual verification that this was a colloquial term in Europe at the time. Caidin doesn’t get his sources wrong very often, and I think that’s the main source for it becoming a common term. There may be some interview comments here or there.

 

Gabelschwanzteufel is wrong on many levels - just like "Teufelhunden" (a word that manages to have two grammatical errors in it - supposedly "colloquial language"...yeah, BS).

It's just advertising/ propaganda.

 

The word "Gabelschwanz" (fork-tail/ fork's tail) doesn't exist in German.

You could say "gegabelter Schwanz" ("forked-tail"), but most people would rather call it "Schwalbenschwanz" (swallow's tail/ swallow-tailed). That is a term that's more likely to be used.

It also linguistically doesn't make any sense, as the devil didn't play the same role in Germany at the time in colloquial language. The same is true for the aforementioned "Teufelshunden".

 

Also, german nicknames used to be a lot more ironic, sarcastic or cynical and object-related (e.g. "Stalinorgel", "Hitlersäge", "Goldfasan", "Etappenhengst", "Gulaschkanone" etc.) than spiritual/ mystical and allegorical stuff ("Whistling death", anybody?).

For a list see here (might need google-translator):

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Soldat/Landserausdruecke-R.htm

 

For a reference in Landser-speak - it's those little gems:

Quote

k.v.- eigentlich "kriegsverwendungsfähig" übersetzt mit "keine Verbindungen", "kann verrecken" oder "krepiert vielleicht"
k.v.H.- eigentlich "kriegsverwendungsfähig Heimat" übersetzt mit "kann vorzüglich humpeln" also simulieren

 

The sarcastical play on words (abbreviations) is hard to translate.

That maybe the reason why german humor is so well known across the world.

 

======================================================================

 

8 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

The actual story behind the “fork tailed devil” tale is that a German pilot surrendered to US troops in Tunisia and hysterically pointing at P-38’s calling them fork tailed devils

 

Except that this didn't happen:

The early P-38 weren't all that great compared to the 109s and 190s in service in the MTO. Also, the american squadrons had to play a lot of catch-up in terms of tactics and overall combat experience. In short: Actual performance of P-38 in terms of kills/ losses wasn't anything to write home about and certainly would not cause any lost sleep among german fighter-pilots, which had fought against on-par enemies since the the Spitfire came up in numbers.

The whole story breaks down, once you apply a bit of logic.

There is no source of the Luftwaffe being overly impressed by the P-38. It was just another fighter. Certainly better than the P-39 and P-40 at altitude, but hardly more of a serious problem than any contemporary Spitfire already in service.

 

Now the P-38 would certainly have made an impression with the transport-guys of the Luftwaffe, but they were generally picked from the skies by anything equipped with forward-firing gun (and sometimes even a heavy bomber). They were absolutely helpless. I'm sure they were concerned when they saw P-38s, but then again a Beaufighter or a stinky old Hurricane would have concerned them just as well - alone above the Mediterranean...

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bremspropeller

 

Thank you - finally one guy with guts to clear things up about all those "original German" nicknames that apparently were used back then 75 years ago.

 

And sometimes it's really most embarrassing seeing all those nicknames used by other members on this board using some "typical" German terms...

main point to them is, it sounds Teutonic, harsh and evil.

 

Cheers

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/28/2018 at 1:20 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

My prediction...

 

It will be good at high speed ground attack, but unless some Japanese aircraft magically appear, it will quickly be abandoned for use as a pure fighter.  It's just too big a target, and unlike the Pacific, it has no large performance margin over it's opponents.

 

Spot on.

 

Also, the late war 38s are great aircraft for 1v1 (if you can work it's performance features well enough against a G-10, K-4 or D-9), but pretty dull for many vs many.

Part of that is that everybody knows who YOU are (telltale design), yet figuring out who everybody else is (single engine fighters) takes a bit more time. It's also gonna be easy to hit and lots of it's volume does carry vital stuff.

 

 

On a different note (not directed to you, EL):

Be critical with Bodie. I have his books on the Thunderbolt and Lightning, and it's arkward how he tries to label each of the aircraft as the best inventions since scliced bread, while being relatively clueless about german fighters in general, which is telling when he tries to sell "superiority" over german designs, when there actually wasn't any - and in case of the P-38 where were critical issues with the airplane's basic design.

YES, it really was the "funny way the airplane looked" that made the 38 trail behind in critical Mach.

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood and agree.  Engine limit concerns aside, the Lightening should be a good, but not great fighter.  We have to remember its role was to be a high altitude bomber interceptor, not an air superiority fighter.  Where I think it will work in game will be as a fast attack, low level interdictor, considering it's weapons loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rekt said:

but the Luftwaffe never had anything even remotely as capable of projecting air power as the P-38.

The Bf-110 projected an awful lot in 1939. It projected in fact the Lightning as a concept. Aircraft design is very much as designing ladies' shoes if you ever intent to sell your bird. At that point, the twin engine design was the new one engine design. They said it was not just a fighter, but a destroyer. ("General, we need some of them destroyers too!!") I mean, who wants fighter when you can have destroyers? Hence Kelly Johnson went on the drawing boards and tried to figure out how to put two engines and two turbochargers in one aircraft. Supercharging was frowned upon, hence it was no option. NAVY and MARINES were less stubborn, hence they got good aircraft with two gear superchargers. It is still the same today. X-band stealth is now what was then the destroyer (or for the British: the elliptic wing). It doesn't matter if you cannot service the aircraft anymore yourself or if they require the least stealth ground ops imaginable or if you flat out have to discount all other forms of detection besides X-band radar to make your toy a meaningful proposition. Unless military is fighting a war that could really send the top brass on the gallows if things go south, military usually buys their toys as some buy their shoes. But man, they love trends.

 

I would definitely say that the Germans projected an awful lot with what they had in the air, at least until 1942. The P-38 had very mixed results, and in contested airspace, it is often not a very suitable aircraft. The P-38 was good only, once it either had a significant performance lead over the opponents or if air superiority had already been achieved at least to some degree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

..."Gulaschkanone"...

 

I had to look that one up. Brilliant! :biggrin:

 

Gulaschkanone deployed in anti-aircraft mode...

Bundesarchiv_Bild_201-MA34-370-91-21,_Ha

 

As for what the average Luftwaffe pilot really thought of the P-38, I suspect they were more concerned with the fact that the allies were capable of deploying escort fighters in large numbers over their territory, rather than worrying over the finer points of performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rekt said:

I haven't read that author so I wouldn't defend his work in general, but specific to this point the P-38 was in fact superior to anything the Germans designed from the standpoint of providing the capabilities - speed, range, and armament - that USAAF commanders needed in order to perform their assigned strategic missions. People tend to trivialize how much of an accomplishment it was to develop reasonably competent fighter planes with extremely long legs, but the Luftwaffe never had anything even remotely as capable of projecting air power as the P-38. This lack of capability in the German designs cost them the Battle of Britain and perhaps the whole war.

 

The P-38 wasn't superior in terms of speed and armament.

It also had a lot of additional range provided for itself by using more internal volume for fuel and by making heavy use of nonstandard engine tweaking. In terms of raw performance, the P-38 didn't outfly anything in Europe - not at it's introduction and not when it was replaced by more performant aircraft during 1944.

 

The Luftwaffe actually had the option of stuffing more fuel in either of their legacy fighters (especially the Fw 190), but they chose not to.

The Ta 152C and H had additional fuel bags as standard internal fit and they would go more than 1000km on internal fuel alone.

The Luftwaffe was very late to the party of strategic airpower, but they did attend.

 

The Germans never lost the Battle of Britain. They never planned to invade Britain in the first place, which is the whole set up for Churchill's BoB.

The whole operation was a sharade for arms build up in the east and hoping to scare Churchill into an armistice. It's right in Goebbels' diary.

 

2 hours ago, Rekt said:

Had the USAAF been equipped with nothing but P-38s in the ETO for the entire duration of the conflict, their early flaws would have been more quickly resolved. Germany would still have lost and probably at about the same pace as they did (though at far greater expense to the US and perhaps causing a delay in beating Japan). Running away from P-38s in a dive to save one's life doesn't stop a formation of B-24s or achieve air superiority over a ground battle. Once the Americans had a fighter that could reach everything the game was over...the fact that a better and cheaper option (the P-51) became available was icing on the cake.

 

That is untrue. In fact, even during Big Week, the USAAF losses were unacceptable, but the introduction of the P-51 and leaning deeper into Germany with a more capale aircraft (the Germans were late at the "capable engines"-party in 1944) in the weeks following enabled breaking the Luftwaffe's neck. The Germans found themselves outflown over their own territory and this was the major key to having relatively free reign of the air from post Normandy onwards. The P-38 was incapable of doing so.

 

Running away from P-38 isn't really the issue here. Bouncing a flight of Messerschmitts not faster than your critical Mach of only 0.67 is a pretty bad limitation at high altitudes. The Brits thought the Lightning was incapable of doing the job the Mustang did in the ETO. I agree.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

...

The Germans never lost the Battle of Britain. They never planned to invade Britain in the first place, which is the whole set up for Churchill's BoB.

The whole operation was a sharade for arms build up in the east and hoping to scare Churchill into an armistice. It's right in Goebbels' diary.

...

 

They failed in their objective.  If it wasn't 'losing', it certainly wasn't a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Bf-110 projected an awful lot in 1939. It projected in fact the Lightning as a concept. Aircraft design is very much as designing ladies' shoes if you ever intent to sell your bird. At that point, the twin engine design was the new one engine design. They said it was not just a fighter, but a destroyer. ("General, we need some of them destroyers too!!") I mean, who wants fighter when you can have destroyers? Hence Kelly Johnson went on the drawing boards and tried to figure out how to put two engines and two turbochargers in one aircraft. Supercharging was frowned upon, hence it was no option. NAVY and MARINES were less stubborn, hence they got good aircraft with two gear superchargers. It is still the same today. X-band stealth is now what was then the destroyer (or for the British: the elliptic wing). It doesn't matter if you cannot service the aircraft anymore yourself or if they require the least stealth ground ops imaginable or if you flat out have to discount all other forms of detection besides X-band radar to make your toy a meaningful proposition. Unless military is fighting a war that could really send the top brass on the gallows if things go south, military usually buys their toys as some buy their shoes. But man, they love trends.

 

 

 

I would definitely say that the Germans projected an awful lot with what they had in the air, at least until 1942. The P-38 had very mixed results, and in contested airspace, it is often not a very suitable aircraft. The P-38 was good only, once it either had a significant performance lead over the opponents or if air superiority had already been achieved at least to some degree.

 

 

In fact, the Bf 110 didn't do bad at all during the Battle of Britain, too!

It had a kill/loss ratio in excess of 3:1 (better than the 109) and it had a larger relative share of kills compared to the 109 (~20% of fighters in theatre, but ~27% of the kills made).

The myth of the Bf 110 being a flying target during Battle of britain is just that: A myth.

It's all down to tactics and pilot-capability.

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

They failed in their objective.  If it wasn't 'losing', it certainly wasn't a win.

 

Certainly true, but it also wasn't the RAF that "saved the free world".

Hitler threw a chip into the game and hoped for an armistice (hence his restraint at Dunkirk) and blundered in his assessment of Churchill.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-38 was one of the best turning and climbing American fighters, regardless of its size. It also did very well at high altitude.

Roll rate, meh. Until boosted ailerons.

Safe dive speed, def meh.

But its high-aspect wing and butterfly flaps, high available power, torque-cancelling engines meant that at medium and low speed turns it turned very, very well. Far better than you would expect from a large fighter. The torque-cancelling also meant it could pull off near-stall maneuvers that single-engined fighters couldn't.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is engine management in the P38? Is it more or less complex than with the P40? Do they share common characteristics (manifold and rpm management)? I guess turbo must make things more complex? would that be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It didn't change - it's still the J-25 that's being built. Ls weren't used in the ETO.

 

Yeah, why is everyone talking about the L in the first two pages of this thread?  Or is there little difference between the late J and 'L'?

I always thought the J looked a little prettier anyhow : D

 

In my flight sim experience the 38 has gotten better with better simulation -- I'm going to take a wild stab and say that about 10 years ago a lot of the FM was sourced from single engine fighters, so the twin engine jobs always felt a little strange, just more stable and heavier single seat fighters.  But the p38 has a huge wing area and a lot of power, and once the high speed compression problems are dealt with using hydraulics and speed breaks it's a true high speed performance fighter.  It will generally outfly anything else in high altitude vertical fights because of the climb rate.  The down sides are that they aren't as nimble and they have to be flown more like a train than a motorbike.  All of that lateral mass makes it hard to jerk the nose onto target so you have to fly into your shot picture.  They are huge targets too, especially from above or below, so the zoom can be difficult without picking up bullets, which is why using hydraulics and dive brakes to gain the ability to speed away with control was so important.  But it might impact it a lot more in the ETO with late 109s and 190s and all of their 20mm.

 

With the way BoX models slow speed flight it should be a fantastic machine to pull hammerheads in -- big wing and lots of rudder authority and you should be able to just kick over sideways without worrying about spin or anything.  Super looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the RAF could really have "failed" in the defense of Britain. Yes, No 11 group was almost down on their knees, but the fact that a strategical change to bombing London had them recover in a short time indicates that they (Fighter Command) still were pretty far from tipping over.

One should not forget that the Luftwaffe was in bad shape from their operations in the preceeding 9 months - the losses and high operational tempo had taken quite a toll on the aircrews.

 

Just or unjust cases don't decide over winning or losing - their plan (or lack thereof*) was just too fundamentally stupid to work.

They could have stopped in summer of 1939 and would have made spectacular gains in territory without firing a single shot.

But that wasn't part of the plan and they didn't really play for keeps: The whole war fundamentally was a gamble whether one could invade a vast country, make their people one's slaves, have them pay for the war and in the end make it all somehow work out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Venturi said:

The P-38 was one of the best turning and climbing American fighters, regardless of its size. It also did very well at high altitude.

Roll rate, meh. Until boosted ailerons.

Safe dive speed, def meh.

But its high-aspect wing and butterfly flaps, high available power, torque-cancelling engines meant that at medium and low speed turns it turned very, very well. Far better than you would expect from a large fighter. The torque-cancelling also meant it could pull off near-stall maneuvers that single-engined fighters couldn't.

 

Agreed. For anyone who hasn't done so look up Johannes Steinhoff interview and views on the P-38. I was under the impression for quite a long time that the P-38 was a mediocre fighter until reading his interview and doing more research myself. 

In the hands of a decent pilot the P-38 will be one of the best 1v1 fighters in the game imo even if it's not the fastest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CAFulcrum said:

Yeah, why is everyone talking about the L in the first two pages of this thread?  Or is there little difference between the late J and 'L'?

 

IIRC, there weren't a lot of dramatic differences between late Js and early Ls. One difference I can think of right now is the rocket armament that could be carried. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed. For anyone who hasn't done so look up Johannes Steinhoff interview and views on the P-38. I was under the impression for quite a long time that the P-38 was a mediocre fighter until reading his interview and doing more research myself. 

In the hands of a decent pilot the P-38 will be one of the best 1v1 fighters in the game imo even if it's not the fastest.

Context here. Steinhoff was first in Russia, where he really didn‘t meet much trained resistance. Then in the MTO, he had to deal with people knowing their business. But if you (in an 109F) were used to fighting P-40, Hurricanes or SpitV, then it must have been a bad surprise when he faced an aircraft that that was as good or better in climb as his. Diving away for escaping is a much better thing to over home turf than somewhere out over the sea or over hostile areas. And now he couldn’t climb away anymore. I bet he wasn‘t happy with facing (a lot of) Lightnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

How is engine management in the P38? Is it more or less complex than with the P40? Do they share common characteristics (manifold and rpm management)? I guess turbo must make things more complex? would that be correct?

No it is far easier.

Our P-38 should have manifold regulator, max turbo rpm limiter, auto radiators and intercoolers, RPM lever should move up with the throttle (but not down). 

 

2 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

 

Yeah, why is everyone talking about the L in the first two pages of this thread?  Or is there little difference between the late J and 'L'?

I always thought the J looked a little prettier anyhow : D

 

There is not much difference at all between a late J and L. The only visual difference you can tell an L from a J is that the L has a Leading edge landing light on the port wing and a the tail warning radar. They have same effective powerplant (2x 1600hp) but is about 1000lbs lighter. L has extra equipment as mentioned plus can carry 10x HVAR rockets and pylons are cleared each for 2000 lbs ordnance. As a fighter aircraft, the J-25 is better, as a multirole aircraft, L is better.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

In fact, the Bf 110 didn't do bad at all during the Battle of Britain, too!

It had a kill/loss ratio in excess of 3:1 (better than the 109) and it had a larger relative share of kills compared to the 109 (~20% of fighters in theatre, but ~27% of the kills made).

The myth of the Bf 110 being a flying target during Battle of britain is just that: A myth.

It's all down to tactics and pilot-capability.

 

Certainly true, but it also wasn't the RAF that "saved the free world".

Hitler threw a chip into the game and hoped for an armistice (hence his restraint at Dunkirk) and blundered in his assessment of Churchill.

Hitlers biggest mistake was to declare war on the US, game ,set and match. The Germans never had anything but a tactical air force with limited range .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hoped Tojo would advance into the Soviet Union in turn.
Too bad he hadn't asked ole Tojo about his plans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 3:52 PM, JG27_PapaFly said:

I've always loved the P-38. IMO I think it'll be owned by the 190s and 109s. It's high instantaneous turn rate doesn't worry me.

IMO these things will hurt it:

- Slow at low and medium alt

- Poor sustained turn rate due to poor power-to-weight ratio

- Poor acceleration (see above)

- Huge target

 

It's the first red plane that I find tempting to fly. Korny and I loved to fly it in the old game. It was very rewarding for our team.

With the exception of the last item, that post is pretty much the opposite of the truth.

 

It was the best accelerating fighter in the US inventory.

 

Its power to parasite drag ratio is only exceeded by the P51 and 190.

 

I can easily outturn all of it opponents in a sustained knife fight.

 

Its power to weight ratio is higher than the P51B and D

 

It is big compared to its LW opponents. 

It is a little slower than the P51 but out accelerates the P51

Roll rate was its big performance drawback but the aileron boost made it go from worst to first in roll rate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

 

Then why were they building equipment, training  troops and making plans for an occupation of England?

 

 

82nd divisional jumps? Ssangyong?  Hugo Chávez blowing up the bridges on the Táchira?  What if I told you that building equipment, "training" troops and making "plans" does not itself not indicate any level of genuine preparedness or interest in doing anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ssangyong? Curious about that reference.

 

:salute:

Skud

2 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

82nd divisional jumps? Ssangyong?  Hugo Chávez blowing up the bridges on the Táchira?  What if I told you that building equipment, "training" troops and making "plans" does not itself not indicate any level of genuine preparedness or interest in doing anything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Krisu said:

 

RollChartClr2.jpg

 

That doesn't look that appealing to me, you can see the spitfire is also included in this graph (degrees/sec and airspeed). 

 

Look at the P-38L, thats similar to what we'll have in-game with boosted ailerons.

P-38J in this chart is unboosted.

 

Don't expect it to be the best in roll rate because it won't be, at least not at the normal speeds we see in-game. It wont be horrible either though.

 

EDIT: I'll try to find the original P-38 roll chart, the P-38 was added to that chart posted and is not original and may not be 100% accurate though it should be around those numbers.

 

Here's a time to bank chart for the P-38J with boosted and unboosted ailerons.

p-38j-roll.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart shows the boosted-aileron P-38 will outroll anything in game above 350mph. It certainly will surprise people that think a 190 can outroll anybody, always.

The P-51B will outroll the 190 above 360mph, but by a lesser margin.

 

Keep in mind that the chart is not measuredl roll-rate, but calculated roll-rate. The actual, achievable rates might differ slightly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Krisu said:

 

RollChartClr2.jpg

 

That doesn't look that appealing to me, you can see the spitfire is also included in this graph (degrees/sec and airspeed). 

 

 The issue with the P-38 roll is its basic design: its a twin engine fighter. Like all twin engine fighters, it has literally about ton of large metal chunk in the wings, and those wings were pretty long too.

 

From there on, its a simply an issue that you have to overcome that initial intertia resistance the weight and drag of that engine installation.

 

Boosted ailerons only fixed the issue with stick force, but not issue with geometry and weight distribution. It may start to roll very fast at high speed, but the initial rate of roll (and that is what counts  the most in quick paced manaouvres) will be still sluggish, because the roll force first has to overcome that rather large resistance from the weight of the engines.

 

Its the same for all twin engines, its a simple consequence of such a design. Hence why SE radials also tend to roll better than SE inlines - weight distubution is not only closer to the pivot point, weight disztribution is almost perfectly even.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Krisu said:

 

RollChartClr2.jpg

 

That doesn't look that appealing to me, you can see the spitfire is also included in this graph (degrees/sec and airspeed). 

That is a calculated chart at 50 lbs of stick force. It is not a chart of the maximum possible roll rates.

 

At high speed, the unboosted aircraft would have the pilot straining to achieve the 50 lbs force and there would be a resultant delay in achieving the roll rate while the boosted aircraft can easily go to maximum deflection.

 

Will this be properly modeled? Unlikely.

 

The second chart shows the boosted P38 will easily outroll even the FW190 at higher speeds.

 

The boosted J model will match the FW roll rate at about 260 mph and exceed it by a wide margin at 300 mph

Edited by =475FG=DAWGER
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...