What will counter the K4 up high?

[TWC_Ace]

What a pleasure was (again) to shot down an enemy plane in P47D....

 

BTW, this will help some (thanks to Sheriff):

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by blackram

[Panthera]

8 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

The pitot tube on the P-38 is not interfered with the gear down. It is well outboard. Gear doors are the reason for decreased stall speed with gear down.

 

The pitot tube is outboard on almost all propeller driven aircraft in order to avoid prop wash, but that doesn't have anything to do with the reason these devices are inaccurate at high AoA flight.

 

As for the gear doors theory, I'm sorry but that just isn't the case, esp. since they open sideways to the slipstream. 

[Rattlesnake]

10 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

The pitot tube on the P-38 is not interfered with the gear down. It is well outboard. Gear doors are the reason for decreased stall speed with gear down.

 

 

That is not why the trimmable HSTAB is standard on all swept wing jets now. The reason has to do with transonic shock waves and nothing to do with combat.

Above stall speed there is NO torque roll in the DCS P-51. NONE. Study a little Newton. In DCS P-51 you can trim the airplane at 15 inches and at any speed above stall speed you can jack the throttle stop to stop with no flight control inputs required. There is no equal and opposite reaction. It does fall off the left wing when stalled but this is just canned programming from a yoyo that doesnt understand prop airplanes. Torque is ever present in a prop airplane and must always be corrected for. The idea that you can go stop to stop with the throttle with no flight control input is indicative of a failure to understand basic physics.  It is blatantly wrong and anyone with time in actual prop airplanes knows this. 

I just had time to take up the DCS P-51. In cruising flight chop throttle it starts to roll to the right, firewall it and it starts to roll back to the left. So again torque is definitely present. Now it may not be modeled "correctly", whatever that may mean but it is a gross exaggeration to say it has been ignored. And I tried the same thing with the P-47 in Il-2 and it showed even less response to chopped throttle vs. full throttle. So if the torque force exhibited in DCS is insufficient it seems it follows that it is also insufficient in Il-2.
EDIT: Just tried the 109K, which I assume is the "torquiest" aircraft in Il-2. Its responses to chopped throttle/max throttle were approximately equal to the DCS P-51. I'm having trouble understanding what the complaint is.

Edited November 30, 2018 by CMBailey

[Rattlesnake]

22 hours ago, Panthera said:

The chart I presented was a quick grab meant to illustrate the fact that the Cl curve isn't static but actually changes with speed, which by itself raises issues with relying on 1 G stall speeds for predicting turn performance. The random chart I posted wasn't the best to illustrate how it would affect a WW2 fighter, on that we can agree, but it wasn't really meant to either, just to illustrate the effect of speed on Cl.

 

More relevant would be this chart from NACA TN1044 with the wing clmax vs mach relation for several WW2 aircraft:

 

Now you mentioned the Fw190 vs P-51, and indeed I've previously expressed my opinion on this board that most of the truly valid & useable evidence available (incl. the report from which the above graph originates) points toward the Fw190 & P-51 being incredibly close when it comes to turn performance, with perhaps a small advantage to the Fw190 at low altitudes and vice versa up high.

 

 

This is actually very interesting and I thank you for posting it. I assume this is for clean configuration though. Remember, the issue is the P-38 having better flaps than the P-51, with higher aspect ratio possibly playing a part. All I can really say for certain is that in previous games I’ve tried the P-38 has always  been able   to out-do the 51 pretty easily in a maneuver fight.

[69th_Panp]

What will counter the K4 up high?

 

Space shuttle and lazer cannon ?

[Art-J]

4 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I just had time to take up the DCS P-51. In cruising flight chop throttle it starts to roll to the right, firewall it and it starts to roll back to the left. So again torque is definitely present. Now it may not be modeled "correctly", whatever that may mean but it is a gross exaggeration to say it has been ignored. And I tried the same thing with the P-47 in Il-2 and it showed even less response to chopped throttle vs. full throttle. So if the torque force exhibited in DCS is insufficient it seems it follows that it is also insufficient in Il-2.
EDIT: Just tried the 109K, which I assume is the "torquiest" aircraft in Il-2. Its responses to chopped throttle/max throttle were approximately equal to the DCS P-51. I'm having trouble understanding what the complaint is.

 

I agree with you here.

 

I understand the guy is obsessed with how the torque is modelled in flight sims, and he's not happy about this aspect of DCS flight models - he made himself clear on that in numerous posts on the subject not only in this forum. Fair enough.

 

I also don't quite understand why he complains about it here, when Il-2 BoX has clearly even less torque present in its flight models, at least in the five single-engine planes I fly in this sim. P-39 and 109 being close to DCS P-51 (but only in chopping the throttle movement), while P-40, P-47 and Spit IX showing almost no torque reactions to sudden throttle changes whatsoever. No idea about all the other aircraft. Not that it bothers me anyway - BoX isn't the Jesus Christ of prop planes sims and neither is DCS. They both have their own strenghts and weaknesses in flight modelling departments, but can be fun to fly nevertheless.

 

In either case, anyone with both games installed can fire them up and check in few minutes how wrong, or bent on exaggerating the man is (while having a nerve to tell us to "study a little Newton"). Or even better - we can then go to youtube and watch the famous onboard recording of "Miss Velma" crashlanding at Duxford two summers ago - it's not perfect, but with wings, instrument panel and stick visible a few times it's enough to show how the plane reacts to engine suddenly cutting out at about 37-40" of MAP and 220 mph IAS. Hint - with almost no left stick input from the pilot it reacts pretty close to DCS Mustang in the same situation, with even a bit smaller right roll one could say. I do admit, however, left roll when the engine kicks back in seems to be more pronounced in the vid compared to DCS Pony, but not by such a margin Dawger would like to see/believe.

 

That being said, with torque being undermodelled in BoX or not, just like some of you I can't wait to fly the P-38 here anyway.

 

[Panthera]

4 hours ago, CMBailey said:

This is actually very interesting and I thank you for posting it. I assume this is for clean configuration though. Remember, the issue is the P-38 having better flaps than the P-51, with higher aspect ratio possibly playing a part. All I can really say for certain is that in previous games I’ve tried the P-38 has always  been able   to out-do the 51 pretty easily in a maneuver fight.

 

Yes it is indeed for clean configuration, and while I agree that the fowler flaps would help quite a bit with increasing the lift coefficient for the P-38 we also need to remember that with that comes increased drag (the issue with the wing loading again), which is also why I'd reckon that with flaps deployed (10-15 deg maybe, not fully as for when landing) the P-38 could possibly challenge a P-51 for a while, but I don't believe it would be able to hang on sustained. Against a 109K4 however, it really would be no contest, the K4's combined advantages in both drag, P/W & L/W are simply too great.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Panp said:

What will counter the K4 up high?

 

Space shuttle and lazer cannon ?

 

Well the Spitfire XIV would not only counter it, it would also best it, even if it wouldn't be by a lot. That said, the higher you go the more the Spitfire will benefit, so up real high the Spit XIV has all the cards.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Panthera

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

10 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I just had time to take up the DCS P-51. In cruising flight chop throttle it starts to roll to the right, firewall it and it starts to roll back to the left. So again torque is definitely present. Now it may not be modeled "correctly", whatever that may mean but it is a gross exaggeration to say it has been ignored. And I tried the same thing with the P-47 in Il-2 and it showed even less response to chopped throttle vs. full throttle. So if the torque force exhibited in DCS is insufficient it seems it follows that it is also insufficient in Il-2.
EDIT: Just tried the 109K, which I assume is the "torquiest" aircraft in Il-2. Its responses to chopped throttle/max throttle were approximately equal to the DCS P-51. I'm having trouble understanding what the complaint is.

I haven’t bothered to fly the DCS P-51 in several months. The Yak52 release has forced some truth into the prop flight modeling so they may have clued in and added a tiny amount. If I have some time I will test the Pony in DCS and see if there is now at least some torque. 

 

Il2 is okay in this regard but torque is pretty light. War Thunder simulator mode is actually the best of the three when it comes to modeling torque and other prop effects. It is the closest to my real world experience. Its pretty neat in WT SB to have the aircract squat into the left main and have the possibility of torqueing out when turning against the torque at slow speed. 

 

High performance piston aircraft require constant control force/trim changes with every power change. FM designers dont seem to understand that and put mild or non-existent “torque” effects. Its been a problem for over twenty years and likely to continue as most online fighter jocks really get upset when they have constantly changing control inputs required as the throttle goes stop to stop.

5 hours ago, Art-J said:

 

I agree with you here.

 

I understand the guy is obsessed with how the torque is modelled in flight sims, and he's not happy about this aspect of DCS flight models - he made himself clear on that in numerous posts on the subject not only in this forum. Fair enough.

 

I also don't quite understand why he complains about it here, when Il-2 BoX has clearly even less torque present in its flight models, at least in the five single-engine planes I fly in this sim. P-39 and 109 being close to DCS P-51 (but only in chopping the throttle movement), while P-40, P-47 and Spit IX showing almost no torque reactions to sudden throttle changes whatsoever. No idea about all the other aircraft. Not that it bothers me anyway - BoX isn't the Jesus Christ of prop planes sims and neither is DCS. They both have their own strenghts and weaknesses in flight modelling departments, but can be fun to fly nevertheless.

 

In either case, anyone with both games installed can fire them up and check in few minutes how wrong, or bent on exaggerating the man is (while having a nerve to tell us to "study a little Newton"). Or even better - we can then go to youtube and watch the famous onboard recording of "Miss Velma" crashlanding at Duxford two summers ago - it's not perfect, but with wings, instrument panel and stick visible a few times it's enough to show how the plane reacts to engine suddenly cutting out at about 37-40" of MAP and 220 mph IAS. Hint - with almost no left stick input from the pilot it reacts pretty close to DCS Mustang in the same situation, with even a bit smaller right roll one could say. I do admit, however, left roll when the engine kicks back in seems to be more pronounced in the vid compared to DCS Pony, but not by such a margin Dawger would like to see/believe.

 

That being said, with torque being undermodelled in BoX or not, just like some of you I can't wait to fly the P-38 here anyway.

 

I was reacting to someone holding up DCS as the gold standard in prop sims and advising against using DCS in that manner.  In this area none get it right and DCS is the worst because it purports to be as close to reality as possible.

4 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Yes it is indeed for clean configuration, and while I agree that the fowler flaps would help quite a bit with increasing the lift coefficient for the P-38 we also need to remember that with that comes increased drag (the issue with the wing loading again), which is also why I'd reckon that with flaps deployed (10-15 deg maybe, not fully as for when landing) the P-38 could possibly challenge a P-51 for a while, but I don't believe it would be able to hang on sustained. Against a 109K4 however, it really would be no contest, the K4's combined advantages in both drag, P/W & L/W are simply too great.

 

 

 

Well the Spitfire XIV would not only counter it, it would also best it, even if it wouldn't be by a lot. That said, the higher you go the more the Spitfire will benefit, so up real high the Spit XIV has all the cards.

 

 

 

The first 8-12 degrees of flaps on any aircraft are almost pure lift with little parasitic drag. Beyond that the relationship reverses with drag becoming predominant with little lift gain. The P38 maneuver flap setting is about 25 degrees so there is some parasitic drag but it comes with expanded wing area and a big lift boost. The late model P-38s should easily outperform the P51 is a sustained max performance turn. The P38 has better excess power and a much lower stall speed. If it can somehow survive long enough against the K4 in a knife fight to get slow it will eventually do the same, especially in a sustained right turn.

[Rattlesnake]

8 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

I haven’t bothered to fly the DCS P-51 in several months. The Yak52 release has forced some truth into the prop flight modeling so they may have clued in and added a tiny amount. If I have some time I will test the Pony in DCS and see if there is now at least some torque. 

 

Il2 is okay in this regard but torque is pretty light. War Thunder simulator mode is actually the best of the three when it comes to modeling torque and other prop effects. It is the closest to my real world experience. Its pretty neat in WT SB to have the aircract squat into the left main and have the possibility of torqueing out when turning against the torque at slow speed. 

 

High performance piston aircraft require constant control force/trim changes with every power change. FM designers dont seem to understand that and put mild or non-existent “torque” effects. Its been a problem for over twenty years and likely to continue as most online fighter jocks really get upset when they have constantly changing control inputs required as the throttle goes stop to stop.

I was reacting to someone holding up DCS as the gold standard in prop sims and advising against using DCS in that manner.  In this area none get it right and DCS is the worst because it purports to be as close to reality as possible.

The first 8-12 degrees of flaps on any aircraft are almost pure lift with little parasitic drag. Beyond that the relationship reverses with drag becoming predominant with little lift gain. The P38 maneuver flap setting is about 25 degrees so there is some parasitic drag but it comes with expanded wing area and a big lift boost. The late model P-38s should easily outperform the P51 is a sustained max performance turn. The P38 has better excess power and a much lower stall speed. If it can somehow survive long enough against the K4 in a knife fight to get slow it will eventually do the same, especially in a sustained right turn.

I used the phrasing “if it is the most realistic” because honestly having 0 P-51 time I can really have no idea which is realistic except in the broadest terms.

 

Anyway I wasn’t so much thinking about torque or lack thereof as I was bounce in pitch and nose bounce in general. A lot of games’ renditions of fighters you have to tweak your control curves and be surgical in how you handle your stick to be able to stop the nose on one point for as long as a second or two. I suspect this was not the case for the real fighters, and it’s an annoying game mechanic in any case. 

 

I have indeed played sims that were torquier...and had a friend with lots of time in high powered props complain about how unrealistic the excessive torque was. So I just don’t know anymore, I’m kind of agnostic on that issue of realism in specific plane models in different sims these days.

13 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Yes it is indeed for clean configuration, and while I agree that the fowler flaps would help quite a bit with increasing the lift coefficient for the P-38 we also need to remember that with that comes increased drag (the issue with the wing loading again), which is also why I'd reckon that with flaps deployed (10-15 deg maybe, not fully as for when landing) the P-38 could possibly challenge a P-51 for a while, but I don't believe it would be able to hang on sustained. Against a 109K4 however, it really would be no contest, the K4's combined advantages in both drag, P/W & L/W are simply too great.

 

 

 

Well the Spitfire XIV would not only counter it, it would also best it, even if it wouldn't be by a lot. That said, the higher you go the more the Spitfire will benefit, so up real high the Spit XIV has all the cards.

 

 

 

I think it entirely plausible that a K4 will beat a 38 going continuously around in a horizontal nose to tail chase, however judging from experience in other sims that’s not something you’re going to see when you’re fighting a skilled 38 man. Would be a waste of their planes torquelessness and other attributes

Also, if the P-38 flaps are as “magical” as the P-47’s currently are the thing will be able to put-turn a Dr1 ?

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

The first 8-12 degrees of flaps on any aircraft are almost pure lift with little parasitic drag. Beyond that the relationship reverses with drag becoming predominant with little lift gain. The P38 maneuver flap setting is about 25 degrees so there is some parasitic drag but it comes with expanded wing area and a big lift boost. The late model P-38s should easily outperform the P51 is a sustained max performance turn. The P38 has better excess power and a much lower stall speed. If it can somehow survive long enough against the K4 in a knife fight to get slow it will eventually do the same, especially in a sustained right turn.

 

While the lift-benefit vs drag-benefit assumption is true, there's a little more to it: L/D always suffers when deploying hi-lift devices (unless you built a really sh!tty wing in the first place), so your power-budget will have to account for the lost efficiency of the wing. No free lunch there.

On fowlers, the center of lift will slightly move aft (additional to the normal nose-down moment when throwing out flaps), so there's additional trim-drag.

 

It should be noted that doing those fancy twin maneuvering stunts, you're supposed to be a really good pilot to pull any gain out of the airplane.

Don't expect the P-38 to dance all over the sky.

 

Also, the P-38 with it's turbo's supposed to shine at higher altitude. Problem is, that's also where Mach becomes a consideration* even below Mcrit. Mcrit and Mne are pretty much the same for those sub-critical profile designs. Modern aircraft with supercritical wings cruise at well beyound Mcrit.

 

_

* For maneuvering flight, there are actually two Coffin Coners - one where stall-speed and Mne meet at 1g conditions, and one where stall-speed and Mne meet for Max g.

That is at lower airspeed and lower altitude.

 

[Panthera]

16 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

The first 8-12 degrees of flaps on any aircraft are almost pure lift with little parasitic drag. Beyond that the relationship reverses with drag becoming predominant with little lift gain. The P38 maneuver flap setting is about 25 degrees so there is some parasitic drag but it comes with expanded wing area and a big lift boost. The late model P-38s should easily outperform the P51 is a sustained max performance turn. The P38 has better excess power and a much lower stall speed. If it can somehow survive long enough against the K4 in a knife fight to get slow it will eventually do the same, especially in a sustained right turn.

 

Not even talking about the gain in parasitic drag as the difference here is already high to begin with due to the sheer size difference, but more about the increase in induced drag (by far the largest source of drag in a turn) to achieve lift to weight parity with the P-51 or esp. the 109. This extra drag will require a hefty advantage in P/W to overcome. Punching in the numbers there is simply very little reason to believe that the P-38 could match a P-51 in a sustained turn at anything but high altitude, and a slightly smaller turning radius (if even so) would only benefit it for a short while. Against the 109 there's just no chance, as the 109 also features equally effective (actually more in turning flight, esp. since they are self regulating) high lift devices and an absolutely massive advantage in excess thrust.

 

 

7 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I think it entirely plausible that a K4 will beat a 38 going continuously around in a horizontal nose to tail chase, however judging from experience in other sims that’s not something you’re going to see when you’re fighting a skilled 38 man. Would be a waste of their planes torquelessness and other attributes

Also, if the P-38 flaps are as “magical” as the P-47’s currently are the thing will be able to put-turn a Dr1 ?

 

I would seriously question the validity of those simulations then.

 

I simply haven't seen any convincing evidence, scientific or anecdotal that the P-38 was particularly impressive in a turning fight. I'm sure an excellent pilot could do wonderful things in it, but there certain physical limits that just can't be crossed.

 

Adolf Galland's famous comment says it all IMHO:

"P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true. "

Edited December 1, 2018 by Panthera

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

3 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

 

"P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true. "

That's his point of view, how about another one

Capt Heiden commander of 79th FS 20th FG

"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

 

"Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane."

 

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better."

[DSR_A-24]

11 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I think it entirely plausible that a K4 will beat a 38 going continuously around in a horizontal nose to tail chase, however judging from experience in other sims that’s not something you’re going to see when you’re fighting a skilled 38 man. Would be a waste of their planes torquelessness and other attributes

Also, if the P-38 flaps are as “magical” as the P-47’s currently are the thing will be able to put-turn a Dr1 ?

 

I was able to turn inside a Bf-109K4 in my P-47D-28 with flaps earlier this morning. I couldn't tell if tell if I shot at his plane earlier which may have influenced his rate of turn because the skies are littered with Bf-109K4s. Nonetheless that was probably one angry kraut ?. 

Ironically the current P-47 is actually a better turn and burner than a BNZer. The P-38 objectively turns inside of a P-47 so could you just imagine the flaps on that monster. The sluggish roll rate may hinder its low speed effectiveness but I'd imagine that'll be offset by the lack of torque.

[Ehret]

2 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Ironically the current P-47 is actually a better turn and burner than a BNZer. The P-38 objectively turns inside of a P-47 so could you just imagine the flaps on that monster. The sluggish roll rate may hinder its low speed effectiveness but I'd imagine that'll be offset by the lack of torque.

 

We should get boosted ailerons as mod for the J. (hopefully)

[DSR_A-24]

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

We should get boosted ailerons as mod for the J. (hopefully)

The boosted aileron are truly only benefited from flying at high speeds. I like how this a hopefully situation when we should have dive flaps and boosted ailerons without a doubt. They decided to choose the P-38J over the L so we'll see.



The dive-recovery flaps for the P-47D-30. The plane I was hoping we'd be getting.

"The dive flaps reached maximum effectiveness in high-altitude tests at approximately 3g at the forward center-of-gravity position and 3.5g at the rearward center-of-gravity position. At low altitude, however, the maximum effectiveness could not be obtained at either center-ofgravity position. Accelerations as high as 4.6g at a Mach number of 0.66 were obtained,"

[Panthera]

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

That's his point of view, how about another one

Capt Heiden commander of 79th FS 20th FG

"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

 

"Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane."

 

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better."

 

I won't deny that pilot anecdotes aren't exactly a reliable source  That's why I prefer checking the physics if I want a more definite answer to a question, and checking there first I'm inclined to believe in Galland on this one 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Panthera

[sevenless]

20 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I won't deny that pilot anecdotes aren't exactly a reliable source  That's why I prefer checking the physics if I want a more definite answer to a question, and checking there first I'm inclined to believe in Galland on this one 

 

 

Well, neither P-47 nor P-38 had a positive K/D i.e. more kills in the air than a/c lost. Only P-51 shot down more germans than a/c lost. So don´t expect too much from P-38 once implemented in the game. It might be good against a 109 G-6 or 190 A-5, but against the late war german piston fighters like K4 or D9, I doubt it.

 

 

[DSR_A-24]

40 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I won't deny that pilot anecdotes aren't exactly a reliable source  That's why I prefer checking the physics if I want a more definite answer to a question, and checking there first I'm inclined to believe in Galland on this one 

 

 

 

Galland's impression of the P-38 was most definitely based in 1943 and early 1944. However by the time the P-38L was ready to make an impression it was too late as the P-51 became the dominate fighter. So the left impression of the P-38 would be its role as the only escort fighter available at the time. What physics do you need to look into? The tactic used to evade P-38 were to split S as the P-38 couldn't roll fast enough to follow and if they even managed to the plane would be sucked into compressibility. The P-38L roll rate increased with the use of boosted ailerons and the dive flaps assisted in high speed dives. This does add up to Capt Heiden claims on the P-38L. 
 

15 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Well, neither P-47 nor P-38 had a positive K/D i.e. more kills in the air than a/c lost. Only P-51 shot down more germans than a/c lost. So don´t expect too much from P-38 once implemented in the game. It might be good against a 109 G-6 or 190 A-5, but against the late war german piston fighters like K4 or D9, I doubt it.

 

 

 

How many were lost to actual enemy aircraft? 6/10 out of the top USAAF aces were P-47 pilots. ? What were the K/D ratio for the Fw-190 and Bf-109 ?? 

[sevenless]

19 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

 

How many were lost to actual enemy aircraft? 6/10 out of the top USAAF aces were P-47 pilots. ? What were the K/D ratio for the Fw-190 and Bf-109 ?? 

 

Good questions I can´t answer. I only have that chart and can draw conclusions from there.

[Ehret]

23 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Good questions I can´t answer. I only have that chart and can draw conclusions from there.

 

Some good conclusions can be drawn from the chart:

- P-47s done major bulk of work (more sorties than P-51 + P-38 + P-40 combined!)

- A-36 for a ground attacker offered survival odds close to the Jug' ( loss rate/sortie 0.7% vs 0.8%) and amount of shot-downs of accidental targets

- long range escort sorties were very risky... so much the ground attack Mustang (A-36) offered better survival odds than the P-51s or twin engine P-38s.

- P-39s were used as a combat trainer or for reconnaissance, mostly? Just checked and there were recon variants of the Airacobra, indeed. The forward visibility and low level performance were suitable for the task.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

47 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

How many were lost to actual enemy aircraft? 6/10 out of the top USAAF aces were P-47 pilots. ? What were the K/D ratio for the Fw-190 and Bf-109 ?? 

A large majority of US aircraft were lost due to groundfire and not enemy aircraft.

If you look at different fighter groups loss vs kill ratios very few were actually lost due to enemy aircraft.

 

The 56th (only flew P-47s) for instance shot down over 650 enemy fighters to a loss of only around 48 to enemy aircraft, many other American FG are similar.

Turns out German fighter pilots weren't overly effective at shooting down western allies compared to shooting down Russians with poor aircraft/training.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Legioneod

[Gambit21]

22 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

A large majority of US aircraft were lost due to groundfire and not enemy aircraft.

 

 

Yep - George Preddy of the 352nd, the ace pictured in my avatar among them.

[sevenless]

20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The 56th (only flew P-47s) for instance shot down over 650 enemy fighters to a loss of only around 48 to enemy aircraft, many other American FG are similar.

Turns out German fighter pilots weren't overly effective at shooting down western allies compared to shooting down Russians with poor aircraft/training.

 

WOW! 13,5 K/D for 56th. That means enemy FLAK must have been a hell of a thing to be scared of back then.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Well, neither P-47 nor P-38 had a positive K/D i.e. more kills in the air than a/c lost. Only P-51 shot down more germans than a/c lost. So don´t expect too much from P-38 once implemented in the game. It might be good against a 109 G-6 or 190 A-5, but against the late war german piston fighters like K4 or D9, I doubt it.

 

 

 

K/D? You mean Claims/Losses. I know you know that Claims don't equal Kills.  And we all know that EVERYBODY overclaimed. Only four columns offer any meaningful data. Both "claimed" columns are merely interesting. The only logical conclusion is that Mustang pilots claimed more enemy aircraft destroyed than the total number of Mustangs lost in combat. But we don't know for a fact that the actual K/D ratio is skewed in the Mustang's favor. 

 

Thing that impressed me was if P-47 losses were at the same rate as the P-51, there would have been over 5000 P-47s combat losses.

Check my math, 423435 X .012 = ? I came up with 5081

 

Bottom line, all this single engine, macho, king of the hill talk is total BS. We know the airplane that won the war for the Allies is the De Havilland Mosquito. ?

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by busdriver

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

I won't deny that pilot anecdotes aren't exactly a reliable sourc

 

 

...and yet they can be the most reliable source.

I'm not accusing you of doing the following, but the "the pilot said it so it cant' be true" mentality that takes over in here sometimes is a bit ridiculous.

Yes their memories of battlefield impressions can be wrong, but that's no reason to default to the notion that they're always wrong.

Again, not accusing you of this...just taking the opportunity to vent about something that bugs me about this place sometimes.

 

 

 

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

K/D? You mean Claims/Losses. I know you know that Claims don't equal Kills.  And we all know that EVERYBODY overclaimed. Only four columns offer any meaningful data. Both "claimed" columns are merely interesting. The only logical conclusion is that Mustang pilots claimed the more enemy aircraft destroyed than the total number of Mustangs lost to ALL combat causes. But we don't know for a fact that the actual K/D ratio is skewed in the Mustang's favor. 

 

Thing that impressed me was if P-47 losses were at the same rate as the P-51, there would have been over 5000 P-47s combat losses.

Check my math, 423435 X .012 = ? I came up with 5081

 

Bottom line, all this single engine, macho, king of the hill talk is total BS. We know the airplane that won the war for the Allies is the De Havilland Mosquito. ?

 

 

Yes, K/D isn´t appropriate. C/L would fit better. Also your math is correct. Loss rate of P-47 is impressive.

 

LOL to the Mosquito ?

Edited December 2, 2018 by sevenless

[busdriver]

Just now, sevenless said:

LOL to the Mosquito ?

 

Hey...careful now.

[sevenless]

17 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Hey...careful now.

 

Don´t worry, I´d love to have the Mossie in BoBP, but I don´t think it will happen. If it would be up to me we would get at least 6 collector planes for the game. So much interesting stuff still left out.

Edited December 2, 2018 by sevenless

[=621=Samikatz]

The Mosquito has the claim of making Goering extremely upset and ruining his day, which I think cements it as the greatest war machine the British ever built

[MiloMorai]

One can find all kinds of stats on the USAAF here, http://www.91stbombgroup.com/91st_info/army_air_forces_statistical_digest_ww2_1945.pdf

[Panthera]

10 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Galland's impression of the P-38 was most definitely based in 1943 and early 1944. However by the time the P-38L was ready to make an impression it was too late as the P-51 became the dominate fighter. So the left impression of the P-38 would be its role as the only escort fighter available at the time. What physics do you need to look into? The tactic used to evade P-38 were to split S as the P-38 couldn't roll fast enough to follow and if they even managed to the plane would be sucked into compressibility. The P-38L roll rate increased with the use of boosted ailerons and the dive flaps assisted in high speed dives. This does add up to Capt Heiden claims on the P-38L. 

 

Thing is the boosted ailerons will only help with the roll rate, they will not have any effect on the turning capability of the aircraft and the P-38 will still have to fight against the massive disadvantages it suffers in the most basic of physical categories as compared with the single engined fighters. 

[unreasonable]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

...and yet they can be the most reliable source.

I'm not accusing you of doing the following, but the "the pilot said it so it cant' be true" mentality that takes over in here sometimes is a bit ridiculous.

Yes their memories of battlefield impressions can be wrong, but that's no reason to default to the notion that they're always wrong.

Again, not accusing you of this...just taking the opportunity to vent about something that bugs me about this place sometimes.

 

 

 

 

When they are talking about what their own planes could do I rate them as being highly reliable.  The problem comes when they make comparisons with planes that they have never flown, only flown against, in a limited number of engagements. It makes it hard to know how much of their observation was dependent on the circumstances: the training of the pilots, the tactical situation and doctrine being followed etc. Hence if a pilot generalizes from "Plane A did X better than Plane B on occasion Z" to "Plane A is better than plane B at Xing" his opinion on it's own is not especially reliable.  It really helps to have supporting evidence.

Edited December 2, 2018 by unreasonable

[DSR_A-24]

38 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Thing is the boosted ailerons will only help with the roll rate, they will not have any effect on the turning capability of the aircraft and the P-38 will still have to fight against the massive disadvantages it suffers in the most basic of physical categories as compared with the single engined fighters. 

I disagree.

Being able to change direction through roll rate faster than lets say a Fw-190 is a huge advantage against a Bf-109. The P-38 managed Japanese which are without a doubt better turn fighters than German aircraft. Only the sim will tell, but I bet you the P-38 will one of the best turn fighters once its released.

Here the P-38 has a slightly smaller radius than the P-51.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

[EAF19_Marsh]

Honestly, guys, these are are only claims vs known losses from all causes across different years and circumstances (also open to interpretation). The figures are so porous and open to error as to be border-line meaningless.

 

C/L vs power-loading vs roll rate confirmed by claims vs. losses? That is  quite the convoluted logic.

[Rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I disagree.

Being able to change direction through roll rate faster than lets say a Fw-190 is a huge advantage against a Bf-109. The P-38 managed Japanese which are without a doubt better turn fighters than German aircraft. Only the sim will tell, but I bet you the P-38 will one of the best turn fighters once its released.

Here the P-38 has a slightly smaller radius than the P-51.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

P-38 Pacific pilots in interviews usually talk about using hit and run  tactics though. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by CMBailey

[Panthera]

7 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

I disagree.

Being able to change direction through roll rate faster than lets say a Fw-190 is a huge advantage against a Bf-109. The P-38 managed Japanese which are without a doubt better turn fighters than German aircraft. Only the sim will tell, but I bet you the P-38 will one of the best turn fighters once its released.

Here the P-38 has a slightly smaller radius than the P-51.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

 

As I said earlier with maneuver flaps deployed I can see the P-38 beating the P-51 in radius, esp. since the P-51 doesn't feature a particularly high Clmax airfoil. However I do not see the P-38 beating it in sustained turn rate, esp. not when both are at fighting weight. This was also confirmed in actual flight comparisons (not period calculations) between the P-51 & P-38, where the P-38 could not match the P-51 in either radius or rate below 12 kft. 

 

As for the 109, again it just isn't even close in either case. Keep in mind that modern pilots that have flown both describe the turning capability of the 109 as close to that of the Spitfire (not as good as or better mind you), so close infact that pilot skill would be the deciding factor, which should give some clue as to what level we're talking here. This is also what the math supports.

 

Finally versus the Japanese, you could fight the Zeke & Oscar effectively by keeping the speed high, but I doubt any sane pilot would ever attempt to turn fight with one for very long, be he in a F6F, F4U or P-38.  Even Spitfire pilots were advised to BnZ these two Japanese fighters. 

 

But you are ofcourse allowed to disagree, I just think you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment if you're actually expecting the P-38 to beat the premiere single engined fighters of the day, incl. the P-51, Fw190, Bf-109 & Spitfire.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Panthera

[Red_Von_Hammer]

Ah the super-turning P-38 legend again.
The notion that the P-38 can outturn pretty much anything is based on legends about it's counter rotating props, "simply drop rpm's on one side to make that wing stall and rotate the plane around at slow speed with the other engine providing airflow and lift on the other wing" blabla
It's been said that Richard Bong used this technique and outturned Zero's, this I can believe, he blasted a lot of them.

The issues are:
1) Richard was fighting ill-equipped conscripted college boys at this point, they pretty much lacked the concept of energy management.
2) It's a low speed technique, do it at high speeds and you'll flip floppedy flip flop with less gain on the opponent than before you started fiddling with the throttles.
3) P-38's don't do too well at low speeds, mess it up and stall out completely = You're dead.
4) Try this against a semi-decent pilot, he'll simply firewall it, straighten out and climb before you can get a shot off, then he'll zoom in while you're desperately scrambling for speed = You're dead.
5) The counter to the technique will be out on "YT With CAPITAL Letter Notice Watch And SUBSCRIBE Title" by a streamer or two within days anyway and bam, secret's out, good luck with that.

It's a nice additional tool in the toolbox, a hat trick against newbies with scant regard to energy mgt who TnB in an aircraft shuddering and screaming for more speed, but I wouldn't rely on it.
The P-38 was great, but for it's intended role.

[Sunde]

35 minutes ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

The P-38 was great, but for it's intended role.

Agreed, people are in for a serious awakening if they think the P-38 in a 1v1 will be in a good position against a K4. 
Unlikely to work well, assuming equal skill.  

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

 The P-38 managed Japanese which are without a doubt better turn fighters than German aircraft. Only the sim will tell, but I bet you the P-38 will one of the best turn fighters once its released.
 

 

The P-38 did not manage Japanese fighters by turning with them, but rather by using energy tactics on them.

In fact there's an account of 2 P-38's encountering a single Oscar, and for 20 minutes those two 38's took turns making passes on this one, poor lonely Oscar to no avail, as

this Oscar pilot kept evading each pass with aplomb. Finally the P-38's gave up and went home.

 

Nothing the Allies put on the field could match (or come even close) the Oscar or the Zeke in a turn.

 

 

[=621=Samikatz]

What major roles did the P-38 play over the ETO in late 44/45? How was it used historically?