Jump to content
dkoor

So who else is looking forward to P-38 ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JonRedcorn said:

Holy tits mate, that's some serious climbage.

For a twin engine aircraft, yeah. For single engined prop that's a standard by that stage of the war. Even the P-51 can squeeze out 4000ft/min with a lighter fuel load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 8:37 PM, 77.CountZero said:

Engine timers and recharges will make or brake the airplane in this game, like with any usaf airplane till now, and who knows how will that look in ~6 months when we hopefuly get it in game.

 

Add overheat modeling and flight modeling, and you've got the full picture. Bodenplatte is great in the overheat modeling, on average: one plane basically never overheats (Spit 9), the other overheats all the time (Fw190A8) 😮

 I'm really looking forward to the 38, but I'd like to see some significant fixes beforehand.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-38 is the reason I bought Bodenplatte but after seeing the disastrous engine modeling on the P-47 there is a good chance the P-38 will be a horrid mess.

 

I am prepared to be seriously disappointed. I expect the engines to use the three minute egg timer thermodynamics of the P-47. I suspect the P-38 will get assumptions applied to its FM instead of the facts. It accelerated better than any US fighter, could out turn  at slow speeds every late war fighter produced by the USA or Germany with the maneuver flap and the boosted ailerons gave it tremendous roll rate, curing its only real weakness when it comes to virtual combat.

 

I suspect it will not exhibit any of those characteristics but I sure hope I am wrong.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

P-38 is the reason I bought Bodenplatte but after seeing the disastrous engine modeling on the P-47 there is a good chance the P-38 will be a horrid mess.

 

I am prepared to be seriously disappointed. I expect the engines to use the three minute egg timer thermodynamics of the P-47. I suspect the P-38 will get assumptions applied to its FM instead of the facts. It accelerated better than any US fighter, could out turn  at slow speeds every late war fighter produced by the USA or Germany with the maneuver flap and the boosted ailerons gave it tremendous roll rate, curing its only real weakness when it comes to virtual combat.

 

I suspect it will not exhibit any of those characteristics but I sure hope I am wrong.

 

The engine modelling is definitely an area of concern for pretty much all of the US aircraft but the other points may work out fairly well and maybe even in the P-38s favour.

 

The stability afforded by the P-38s design, particularly the counter rotating engines, seems to be fairly well represented by the Hs129B-2 already so that's good. The flaps on the P-47 already offer what is probably too much lift and turn-in ability and so the P-38 should be positively exceptional here. As for the boosted ailerons... that'll be interesting. Looking forward to trying it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

P-38 is the reason I bought Bodenplatte but after seeing the disastrous engine modeling on the P-47 there is a good chance the P-38 will be a horrid mess.

 

I am prepared to be seriously disappointed. I expect the engines to use the three minute egg timer thermodynamics of the P-47. I suspect the P-38 will get assumptions applied to its FM instead of the facts. It accelerated better than any US fighter, could out turn  at slow speeds every late war fighter produced by the USA or Germany with the maneuver flap and the boosted ailerons gave it tremendous roll rate, curing its only real weakness when it comes to virtual combat.

 

I suspect it will not exhibit any of those characteristics but I sure hope I am wrong.

Think you are being a little harsh on the devs here. They are even going to be modeling the way the p-51's auxillary fuel tank makes the plane very unstable, I think they do a great job making these planes, the engine limits are a little bit basic and unrealistic but for the most part the game does these planes justice without going into full blown DCS territory, and with that direction comes large sacrifices in other areas, such as the ones DCS shows, or clod did in the past. Il2 Box strikes a great balance between game and sim, and I for one appreciate that.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say that the model is looking gorgeous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 9:36 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

I hope it's better than the US aircraft we have gotten so far. (A20 excepted).

If it's shackled with the same steaming pile of bogus engine limits as the 39, 40, and, 47, I will ask to be seconded to the RAF.

It would be a refreshing first in this entire franchise to actually get a US aircraft close to historically accurate.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a game when all said and done, it will never be 100% as per the real thing... bare that in mind while playing, and if it doesn't come up to what individuals 'think' their version should perform like, just play with what you have.

That way people might actually enjoy playing the bloody thing.

 

And by the way, you might notice that while people have complained about fm etc in the past, backed up by documentation and some facts, some of those concerns have actually been ironed out by the dev's ... (eventually)   :yahoo:

 

Anyway chaps, the thing hasn't even been released yet so any 'concerns' are 'moot' at the moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if past is prologue, and I believe that it is, then we absolutely have to be concerned about the Lightning, and the Mustang for that matter. If they behave the same as the other US fighters, with engines letting go a second or two beyond the pilot's notes boost limit time, why bother putting them in the game at all?

 

We already have 109s that fly around like starships, and will soon have a freaking jet that will be utterly unstoppable, and yet we will have an entire line of aircraft that can barely get off the ground without blowing up their engines.  Sounds like a good plan to get more North American sales to me...  Not.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

lol... I'm sticking with the Spits... 'Piece of cake!'  🙉 🙈 🙊

 

As for the 262, well it was pretty much unstoppable, unless you could catch them just after take off or in the landing pattern, as they had a slow response to throttle input in those days...

Edited by Trooper117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

lol... I'm sticking with the Spits... 'Piece of cake!'  🙉 🙈 🙊

 

As for the 262, well it was pretty much unstoppable, unless you could catch them just after take off or in the landing pattern, as they had a slow response to throttle input in those days...

 

Aye... the point is that if, on top of getting the very lax limitations on LW aircraft, we keep getting american aircraft with their ridiculous limitations (not only tighter limits, but far more egregious recovery mechanics), then there won't be much for us to hope for on the allied side.

 

That said, I'm hopeful the Mustang will have good limitation, similar to the Spitfire (as its basically the same engine). I'm sadly not very hopeful for the P-38, as allisons are very undermodeled in the sim (at least their limitations). The P-47 also needs some love, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Aye... the point is that if, on top of getting the very lax limitations on LW aircraft, we keep getting american aircraft with their ridiculous limitations (not only tighter limits, but far more egregious recovery mechanics), then there won't be much for us to hope for on the allied side.

 

I think this is the bulk of my issues with the engine timer mechanic. If it was applied equally and fairly to all sides, I'd have no problem with it, but a G-14 or a K-4 being able to stay on combat or emergency power until it runs out of fuel while all the yank aircraft "lose time" in combat on emergency and vice versa is just simply unfair, without going into the exact numbers involved

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, if past is prologue, and I believe that it is, then we absolutely have to be concerned about the Lightning, and the Mustang for that matter. If they behave the same as the other US fighters, with engines letting go a second or two beyond the pilot's notes boost limit time, why bother putting them in the game at all?

 

We already have 109s that fly around like starships, and will soon have a freaking jet that will be utterly unstoppable, and yet we will have an entire line of aircraft that can barely get off the ground without blowing up their engines.  Sounds like a good plan to get more North American sales to me...  Not.

you are likely correct, as they are 0-4 so far.

 

For those interested a bit more on the 150 octane fuel and it's importance for inclusion in BOBP.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTD7DqXfRno

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Should the P-38 and P-51 stand a chance when used at low altitude, for example for a fast raid with bombs/rockets?  Or is there going to be a huge disparity between them and the opposition?

 

Obviously we don't know how engine limits will be modelled yet, but speaking generally.  I'm allowing myself to be hopeful here.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Should the P-38 and P-51 stand a chance when used at low altitude, for example for a fast raid with bombs/rockets?  Or is there going to be a huge disparity between them and the opposition?

 

Obviously we don't know how engine limits will be modelled yet, but speaking generally.  I'm allowing myself to be hopeful here.

Nothing on red side should be faster then K4 down low

 

I expected P-38 will be good for GA as it turns good but its not so fast, but seing how good P-47 turns and it can carry more bombs and same amount of rockets it will probably be more used for GA then P-38 like i tought at start when i looked at planset.

 

 

11 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

lol... I'm sticking with the Spits... 'Piece of cake!'  🙉 🙈 🙊

 

As for the 262, well it was pretty much unstoppable, unless you could catch them just after take off or in the landing pattern, as they had a slow response to throttle input in those days...

When your fighting on outnumbered side like reds will continue to do even in bobp, you aint gona catch 262s on take of or landings they will be doing that to allieds mutch more easy then they are doing it now.

 

one good thing about P-38 is it has all guns in nouse and 20mm, its good to have strong firepower when fighting outnumbered as you need to get enemy in one pass or others will join fast as there is big chance that who see your attack will be enemy.

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Should the P-38 and P-51 stand a chance when used at low altitude, for example for a fast raid with bombs/rockets?  Or is there going to be a huge disparity between them and the opposition?

 

You will have to climb first then approach the target in a shallow dive. Use gained speed to run away getting pass the 9.5km contact visibility as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Should the P-38 and P-51 stand a chance when used at low altitude, for example for a fast raid with bombs/rockets?  Or is there going to be a huge disparity between them and the opposition?

 

Obviously we don't know how engine limits will be modelled yet, but speaking generally.  I'm allowing myself to be hopeful here.

 

In IL-2 1946 in this kind of scenario I had far more success with the P-38J/L than I did with the P-51D when it came to low altitude interdiction type operations. The Mustang felt so sluggish with a pair of bombs hanging off the wings while the P-38 was seemingly less effected. In this regard I can't see things being that different here. Also if flak got an engine you still had a second one. With the Mustang you were screwed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Nothing on red side should be faster then K4 down low

In the US planeset, no. From the British side, yes: the Tempest.

Edited by Tag777
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tag777 said:

In the US planeset, no. From the British side, yes: the Tempest.

I dont think Tempest will be faster then 109K4 at low alts, maybe same speed at best, but who kows maybe i get plesently suprised :)   11lbs boost could be posible to get bto 630kmh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2019 at 3:50 AM, JonRedcorn said:

Think you are being a little harsh on the devs here. They are even going to be modeling the way the p-51's auxillary fuel tank makes the plane very unstable, I think they do a great job making these planes, the engine limits are a little bit basic and unrealistic but for the most part the game does these planes justice without going into full blown DCS territory, and with that direction comes large sacrifices in other areas, such as the ones DCS shows, or clod did in the past. Il2 Box strikes a great balance between game and sim, and I for one appreciate that.

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

  • short but consistent description of the claim;
  • link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
  • game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need an slightly more advanced engine power settings engine, instead of instant failures one of the reasons why I dint fly p40,p47 as much as I would if they were more durable engine wise, hope the p38 isn’t the same 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember is there are reports of P-38s breaking their engines from incorrect operation. The AF General's assessment someone linked above was very direct that changing the engine from cruise to combat in the wrong order cost him several planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Voyager said:

One thing to remember is there are reports of P-38s breaking their engines from incorrect operation. The AF General's assessment someone linked above was very direct that changing the engine from cruise to combat in the wrong order cost him several planes. 

 

Ah yes - one reason was detonation due not increasing RPM before throttle. That's something what isn't modeled at all in the sim. It's not justification for timer based sudden seizures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 2:11 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

 

I think this is the bulk of my issues with the engine timer mechanic. If it was applied equally and fairly to all sides, I'd have no problem with it, but a G-14 or a K-4 being able to stay on combat or emergency power until it runs out of fuel while all the yank aircraft "lose time" in combat on emergency and vice versa is just simply unfair, without going into the exact numbers involved

I would be pretty happy with a consistent application of the 'engine timer' mechanic too, as long as there was some information on 'resting' the engine and the limits followed the manuals for all planes the same way. Right now that's inconsistent and the engine rest periods don't appear to be based on anything at all. At least the constrictive timers themselves are mostly based on limits from manuals.

Share this post


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

I would be pretty happy with a consistent application of the 'engine timer' mechanic too, as long as there was some information on 'resting' the engine and the limits followed the manuals for all planes the same way. Right now that's inconsistent and the engine rest periods don't appear to be based on anything at all. At least the constrictive timers themselves are mostly based on limits from manuals.

EDIT: Post was harsh, petrovich is a good dude and I feel like this post was not something nice to say towards him or the devs. I encourage people to read the russian forum with a translator, wish I could speak russian. Should start learning it.

Edited by JonRedcorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the devs will reexamine Allison's with release of the p38.  I wish tempatures dictated engine management too but i dont see that changing.  I know the p39 was fast down low but i cant keep it there for more than 10 seconds and the p40 always has the vvs pilot account of them ignoring the manual in interest of survival.  I dont want balance, just accuracy but I think the allisons get shafted with their strict timers worse than any other fighter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 12:38 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, if past is prologue, and I believe that it is, then we absolutely have to be concerned about the Lightning, and the Mustang for that matter. If they behave the same as the other US fighters, with engines letting go a second or two beyond the pilot's notes boost limit time, why bother putting them in the game at all?

 

We already have 109s that fly around like starships, and will soon have a freaking jet that will be utterly unstoppable, and yet we will have an entire line of aircraft that can barely get off the ground without blowing up their engines.  Sounds like a good plan to get more North American sales to me...  Not.

It will be as it ever was. You`ll all buy it even if only to be able to whine about it.

 

As it happens, all BoX featured American planes are demanding of their pilots. I take it P38J will be no different.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is beyond "demanding for their pilots".  It is just a straight out nerf to the real world performance of the US aircraft, and is utterly ignorant of how these aircraft were actually used in combat.

 

All this type of modeling is, is the dev team trying to force the players to play the game like they want them to play, end of story.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 5:18 PM, Tag777 said:

In the US planeset, no. From the British side, yes: the Tempest.

And Spit too. Always the Spit!

 

With how the series are going the roadmap currently, we will soon very much need the La7 and Yak9/9U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 8:55 PM, Frequent_Flyer said:

gIt would be a refreshing first in this entire franchise to actually get a US aircraft close to historically accurate.

 

Salutations,

 

Refreshing perhaps but no matter how the developers set up the flight model and or performance characteristics I'm positive there will be those that complain, whine and moan about something. The developers simply can't satiate many of our players expectations.

 

Mark my words.. there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth after the P-38 is brought online in IL-2.

Edited by Thad
Spelling correction
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with you Thad, and that will be a minor event compared to the introduction of the Mustang.

 

As I have said earlier, I'm putting in for a transfer to the RAF.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too late mate!... All the Eagle Squadrons are now out of the RAF and they have been forced to join their own Air Force  :joy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this topic's title... "who else is looking foward etc. ...". Can you imagine ANYONE not being eager to see this P38?! Deaummm! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, danielprates said:

Thinking about this topic's title... "who else is looking foward etc. ...". Can you imagine ANYONE not being eager to see this P38?! Deaummm! 

AS54GIW.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Too late mate!... All the Eagle Squadrons are now out of the RAF and they have been forced to join their own Air Force  :joy:

 

Ummm... I actually like tea, have played bar skittles in the Granta in Cambridge with the locals, like a good pint of bitter, and know my way around an SMLE, will that help?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lockheed P-38 Lightning, probably the most beautiful allied plane. 

Quote

A Tribute to Richard Ira Bong, America's Ace of Aces, 40 victories in the skies over the south Pacific during WW2. Also featuring Tommy Lynch,Tommy McGuire and pilots and crews of the 5th Army Air Corp,35th fg ,39sq,49th fg, 9th sq and 475th fg 431,sq in these photos and the p-38 Lightning and p-80 Shooting Star.And a tribute to Marge Vattendahl and Bong family. ,and all who fought for freedom

 

 

 

Edited by Panzer-uy

Share this post


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

Mark my words.. there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth after the P-38 is brought online in IL-2.

 

And wonder why it's like that? The P-47, late P-51s and the Lighting need high altitude objectives. No such thing in BOBP (so far) and low you are facing short-range late war LW's point interceptors in numbers. Even if you will have (for the Tempest, the P-51D should be competitive somewhat) rough performance parity the next differentiating factor will be the boost endurance. After 5m minutes of being competitive you will be forced back not even to combat but nominal (emergency eats into combat power unlike LW's planes) when the enemy will have another 5m of full power to easily finish you off and practically unlimited strong combat power after that.

 

In Allied planes in the game you can not do: shallow climb tactics, longer chases, cruise faster, keep covering an objective without being handicapped after few minutes. All those are direct results of artificial (gamey even) mechanism of boost timers where no such thing had place IRL. Yet, we don't have basics like detonation physics - in the sim you can open throttle 100% when the engine is at low RPM and nothing bad will happen...

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

57 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

And wonder why it's like that? The P-47, late P-51s and the Lighting need high altitude objectives.

True.

My question.

What server online  can support online 500 B17 in flight and an escort of 300 P47 and 400 P51.? (at altitude objectives )

IRL.  No way .

The FW 190 D9 and Me 262  need high altitude objectives.  No such thing in BOBP  ....

The problem is not have  the La 7 and Yak 3 - 1944  - 1945 in game.

Edited by Panzer-uy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...