Jump to content
dkoor

So who else is looking forward to P-38 ?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

I have a feeling they are going to model all allied fighters with the 100 octane fuel for now as a base, then come in after and add 150 octane to them. If they start adding 150 from the start to the remaining planes the old ones might not ever receive it. Having both is better to me. 

It covers more time period that way.

 

The P-47D-28 is using the 135 octane settings, as I understand it. The 100 octane Thunderbolt is limited to 2300hp at 54" of manifold pressure.

 

That said, I was given to understand the P-38 did not have major engine power increases during it's operational life due to its compression issues. Do we know if they actually did engine settings for 150 octane fuel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be I think the only current sim to model a P-38..can't wait.

Seen one fly in Palm Springs a few years back one of the few thats still flyable.

On another note been away for awhile DL'd all the new updates and have

the new AC. But the new tanks and map although in the directory don't show

up...any ideas??

Thxs Mates

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

A lone USAAF officer walks through the gate at RAF Westhampnett, and saunters to the operations building...

"Lt. EL reporting for Spitfire transition training sir!"

Wing Commander Richard Cabasa looks up at the Lieutenant, standing stiffly at attention. The WINGCO has been with the RAF since 1939. He is a veteran of The Battle, Dieppe, and Normandy. He does not suffer fools gladly.

"At ease Lieutenant!" He eyes the young man up and down.

"Spitfires, you say.." as he leans back in his chair. "Have you quit the U.S. and joined the RAF, lieutenant?" 

El takes a deep swallow. "Uh...no sir, I....."

"No?" interrupts Cabasa. "Do you have orders sending you here for transitioning to Spits?"

El swallows again. "Uh....no but , I ....."

"No!" says WINGCO Cabasa. "Still in the United States Army Air Force and no orders from your superiors sending you here!" He stands up and leans towards Lieutenant El. "Are you AWOL Liuetenant?" 

"Sir, I'm on a two day pass!"

"And you thought you'd spend it flying Spitfires, eh? Don't you like the machines your coutry has offered you, Lieutenant?" asks Cabasa.

"No sir, i just...."

"Lieutenant El, get out here! Go to London with that pass and get back to your unit before I report your silly ass!" Cabasa sits down and goes back to his paper work. He looks up at El who is still standing at ease in front of his desk.

"Dismissed, Lieutenant!"

 

 

Edited by Poochnboo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

The P-47D-28 is using the 135 octane settings, as I understand it. The 100 octane Thunderbolt is limited to 2300hp at 54" of manifold pressure.

 

That said, I was given to understand the P-38 did not have major engine power increases during it's operational life due to its compression issues. Do we know if they actually did engine settings for 150 octane fuel? 

 

Iirc the P-47 only ever used 100/130 and 100/150 in combat. Any other fuels I'm not aware of.

 

Either way power settings aren't the real issue with the current model imo. 150 power settings for the P-47,P-51 and P-38 would be great of course but imo it wouldn't help fix the current issues.

 

Not sure what the power settings for the P-38 are, but I know it's going to suffer the same issues as all the other American aircraft due to the gimped engine modeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Not sure what the power settings for the P-38 are, but I know it's going to suffer the same issues as all the other American aircraft due to the gimped engine modeling.

 

I have a nice 11.5MB track ZIP file of P-39L vs D9 fight which I had today. It also demonstrates what the gimped engine modelling means in practice. Where I could post it?

Edited by Ehret
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I have a nice 11.5MB track ZIP file of P-39L vs D9 fight which I had today. It also demonstrates what the gimped engine modelling means in practice. Where I could post it?

In the videos section or the suggestions section, but I mean realistically the p-39 we have in game is completely and utterly outclassed by the Dora.

Share this post


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

In the videos section or the suggestions section, but I mean realistically the p-39 we have in game is completely and utterly outclassed by the Dora.

 

I still have 5MB limit there. Should I split it into smaller files?

Share this post


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

 

I still have 5MB limit there. Should I split it into smaller files?

Oh I would upload to youtube first then post it. It's very easy.

Edited by JonRedcorn

Share this post


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

I wrote "climbs to 3000m" - it was at Belroga from about co-velocity well under 600km/h and starting alt lower than 1000m. You can compute power-loading to see that the D9 is not that hot when lower. And who was in that P-39L? From what I have seen most don't even open throttle fully because of fear of engine seizing. That's what awfully sluggish prop gov and 1m 45s before "emergency exceeded" did to popular opinion of the P-39L. Both artificial.

 

Thought, top level speed of the P-39L is high enough and still last long enough to keep the D9 in a gun range for about 20-30s and score hits.

 

Power loading is BS. Thrust counts.

I'll gladly point that out to you 50 more times if necessary.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Oh I would upload to youtube first then post it. It's very easy.

 

Not on my puny ADSL, unfortunately. But I downloaded it here - enjoy! (some will not but phew)

 

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Power loading is BS. Thrust counts.

I'll gladly point that out to you 50 more times if necessary.

 

I'll gladly show an empirical (a track here) evidence every time if necessary.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not empirical evidence for anything - especially not for a physically flawed concept such as "power loading"

 

What power-setting was the Dora-driver using? Was he even aware he had MW-50?

Had a friend fly in Berloga yesterday who only halfway through the evening discovered the Dora had emergency power.

 

Your little track shows nothing to support "power loading" is a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

What power-setting was the Dora-driver using? Was he even aware he had MW-50?

Had a friend fly in Berloga yesterday who only halfway through the evening discovered the Dora had emergency power.

 

I had (and will many more) numerous encounters with D9s like that. Do you claim that in all those pilots weren't aware they had MW-50? Besides, even without it D9 had at least (a combat power) 1900hp therefore should outrun me easily in the P-39L because 1550hp is all I had at best. The thrust is all what matters, right?

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I find it sad that you have nothing better to do than derail a P-38 thread by claiming some wierd stuff with engine timers about P-39s and Doras just so you can again and again whine about the engine timers. You are worse than the luftwhiners by now.

 

:poster_offtopic:

Edited by Psyrion

Share this post


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

I find it sad that you have nothing better to do than derail a P-38 thread by claiming some wierd stuff with engine timers about P-39s and Doras just so you can again and again whine about the engine timers. You are worse than the luftwhiners by now.

 

:poster_offtopic:

 

There some similarities between the P-39 and the P-38 - namely gunnery of the nose mounted 0.50"s, forward visibility, tricycle gear and you wonder what? The engines.

 

And yes - timers are affecting combat and the P-38 will be handicapped the same. The very existence of them in something we call "a sim" is weird. The L-whiners don't make deal of it because in the BOBP timers give them serious advantage - any prolonged fight is a win by default for them. You think I am bad complaining about that? Just wait when the P-51D, Tempest and the P-38 are released and don't be surprised when numbers will deteriorate to 3/1 Axis/Allied ratio and some still wonder why it's often at 2/1 already.

 

But, ok - will try to not OT.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t like the timers either. I agree with you. It´s just been discussed to death. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t like the timers either. I agree with you. It´s just been discussed to death. 

 

And it needs to continue, until something gets changed.

 

Hyped about the '38, for sure.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know what kind of prop pitch governor the P-38L is going to have? Hydraulic or electric?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Do we know what kind of prop pitch governor the P-38L is going to have? Hydraulic or electric?

We´re getting the J-25, maybe that could help you with your search. I think it has the curtiss electric but don´t quote me on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ehret said:

I had (and will many more) numerous encounters with D9s like that. Do you claim that in all those pilots weren't aware they had MW-50? Besides, even without it D9 had at least (a combat power) 1900hp therefore should outrun me easily in the P-39L because 1550hp is all I had at best. The thrust is all what matters, right?

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Psyrion said:

We´re getting the J-25, maybe that could help you with your search. I think it has the curtiss electric but don´t quote me on that.

 

I scanned docs I have and the "Pilot Training Manual" and the "Flight Operating Instructions" state that the propeller is the Curtiss electric prop. So, that's another similarity to the P-39L and in the game the electric prop is very sluggish. Slow enough that you can get engine damaging over-revs if you pitch down or advance throttle suddenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was looking at this official P-38J pic and found an interesting detail:

 

P38_diverecoveryflap_maybe.jpg.d000d1cb5229a7c1620dc428e05cb0fb.jpg

 

That long rectangle in the middle of  bottom wing surface looks like a closed dive recovery flap. Also, I couldn't find the pilot controllable aileron tab(s) on wings in other P-38J pictures from the Dev blog #218. That's potentially good news because it would mean we will be getting boosted ailerons as well because they hadn't trim tabs.

Edited by Ehret
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ehret said:

I was looking at this official P-38J pic and found an interesting detail:

 

P38_diverecoveryflap_maybe.jpg.d000d1cb5229a7c1620dc428e05cb0fb.jpg

 

That long rectangle in the middle of  bottom wing surface looks like a closed dive recovery flap. Also, I couldn't find the pilot controllable aileron tab(s) on wings in other P-38J pictures from the Dev blog #218. That's potentially good news because it would mean we will be getting boosted ailerons as well because they hadn't trim tabs.

 

As I understand it, late model J-25s did have both of these features. I spotted the brakes before but I hadn't had a close look at the ailerons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pjmack11377 said:

is there a release date for the 38?

 

 

2 weeks from some date in the future. Be sure 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The aileron boost and the dive flaps were the major changes incorporated into the J-25 block. All 105 produced and delivered in fighter configuration (105 more were converted into F-5E-4) had those features installed.
I would trade those features for a J-15/20 with an additional "Droop Snoot"-modification all day long...

BTW: The dive flaps are not going to recover or decelerate anything. They are meant to adjust the airflow at high diving speeds.

Edited by =27=Davesteu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Out of curiosity, are there any P-38J-25’s still flying? I’ve been able to find some other blocks still turning props just none from the 25 run.

Edited by BornToBattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Very few P38s of any type remain today as the USAAF got the type out of it's inventory and onto the scrap heap very quickly after the war, unlike the Mustang that carried on for many years with the National Guard.

 

pTAxey.jpg

 

P38s being scrapped after the war in the Philippines.  The USAAF simply did not want them anymore.  Too complicated, and too expensive to keep.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
fixed spelling error
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly that was repeated over and over again after the war for all aircraft types, as the aircraft that won, and lost, the war were very quickly made obsolete by the technological changes brought on by the war itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather said they just pushed Corsairs and Hellcats off the side of the boat and into the ocean after it was all over 😪

 

Must have been on the way from the Philippines to Japan as he was with the occupation forces and caught a ride (he was not in the Navy, he was US Army 24th Infantry Division)

 

Also said he watched an A20 outrun a P-38 once after the A20 pilot insisted he could do it...they all bet on it and the A20 won.

8 hours ago, [CPT]CptJackSparrow said:

If they only knew...

 

Probably no way for anyone at that time to fully understand the value these aircraft would bring one day. It's like the guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark said ... his pocket watch was worth almost nothing...but bury it in the sand for a thousand years and it becomes priceless.

 

Nobody back then would live long enough to see an airplane that cost $50,000 to build and was not worth a fraction of that at the end of the war attain a modern day valuation of $1 million or more (sometimes much more).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well maintained P-51 is a approaching 4-5 million nowadays.

Those airplanes have become financial speculation-objects. At least on our side of the grand ditch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, exactly the same thing that has happened to collector cars.  Older Ferraris, for example, that used to be driven, or vintage raced, are now all locked away as investments, their new owners never getting the real pleasure of them.

 

A sad state of affairs.

Share this post


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

A well maintained P-51 is a approaching 4-5 million nowadays.

Those airplanes have become financial speculation-objects.

 

That is completelly true.

 

Planes are a bit like cars, me thinks. They are, as the timeline goes foward: brand new, then new, then semi-used, then second hand, then old, then really old, then junk.... and then a classic! Prices (and people's idea to preserve them) usually reflect that. Would you keep a 1990s Ford Taurus in your garage, in mint condition and at a high storage and maintnance cost, for some 40 or 50 years, hoping to sell it for a million bucks by then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That particular Ford is a bad example.  Now say if you had kept a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang then it might have been worth doing.   That said you would have been better off putting the money in good investments because over that same period of time the return would be better.   Now, if you took that same Mustang or P-51, or L4 Grasshopper, and used it and took proper care of it, you not only would have a valuable toy, but you would have had the enjoyment of actually using it for what it was meant to do, be it carve up a road or bore holes in the sky.  I actually pity the hoarding collector who sees his prize as simply an asset. 

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

That particular Ford is a bad example.  Now say if you had kept a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang then it might have been worth doing.   That said you would have been better off putting the money in good investments because over that same period of time the return would be better.   Now, if you took that same Mustang or P-51, or L4 Grasshopper, and used it and took proper care of it, you not only would have a valuable toy, but you would have had the enjoyment of actually using it for what it was meant to do, be it carve up a road or bore holes in the sky.  I actually pity the hoarding collector who sees his prize as simply an asset. 

 

Yeah, bad example. It really compares more to holding on to a 5-star car. My example would be more like stashing an Antonov AN-2! And price-wise the comparison is close too:

 

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AN-2 is in an odd place in the USA.  the FAA will not certify it for commercial use, so it is only a collectable here.  I think they fear it would own the Alaska bush cargo trade and hurt sales of  Cessnas, etc...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The AN-2 is in an odd place in the USA.  the FAA will not certify it for commercial use, so it is only a collectable here.  I think they fear it would own the Alaska bush cargo trade and hurt sales of  Cessnas, etc...

 

Canada wont issue commercial certificates for it either. I really don't think there would be enough numbers to seriously impact the domestic "bush plane" trade, moreover, there are a lot of places even the AN-2 cant go where Cubs, Cessnas, etc. are the order of the day. Even if they did let it fly commercially, I feel it would be more of a novelty than anything. It would cool as hell to take a back country fishing trip in an AN-2 on floats though!

 

But anyway.....back on topic!

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...