Lockheed P-38L-5-LO

[SubRyan 5,556]

[Markus752 3,354]

Is the L really supposed to climb that "bad" I mean at least in the low altitude region. It seems way too low for what I heard about the climb rate of P-38's..

[blakeob 8,086]

Is the L really supposed to climb that "bad" I mean at least in the low altitude region. It seems way too low for what I heard about the climb rate of P-38's..

I have heard of climb rates like 24m/s

[bilsantu 5,950]

Is the L really supposed to climb that "bad" I mean at least in the low altitude region. It seems way too low for what I heard about the climb rate of P-38's..

 

 

I have heard of climb rates like 24m/s

 

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

that chart uses an aircraft that is almost 700lbs over normal combat weight (17,400lbs). its also not WEP (which would be 60"hg if its modeled using 100 octane fuel) but NRP or continuous power.

 

why doesn't the P-38L have 150 octane fuel (70"hg)?

Edited October 20, 2015 by Rumpullpus

[PainGod85 8,050]

That 6 second difference in climb speed to 25k feet sure warranted a BR difference of 1.0 compared to the G.

[SubRyan 5,556]

That 6 second difference in climb speed to 25k feet sure warranted a BR difference of 1.0 compared to the G.

 

P-38G WEP climb to 25k feet is 9 minutes, P-38L WEP climb to 25k is 7 minute 54 seconds

[bilsantu 5,950]

that chart uses an aircraft that is almost 700lbs over normal combat weight (17,400lbs). its also not WEP (which would be 60"hg if its modeled using 100 octane fuel) but NRP or continuous power.

 

why doesn't the P-38L have 150 octane fuel (70"hg)?

 

I only found this although I haven't looked very throughly anyway.  :Ps

[jorelo 1,458]

is the MAP setting correct ?i mean realistic ?

[PainGod85 8,050]

P-38G WEP climb to 25k feet is 9 minutes, P-38L WEP climb to 25k is 7 minute 54 seconds

 

Then why wasn't WEP climb used for this data sheet? I'm honestly curious.

is the MAP setting correct ?i mean realistic ?

 

It was claimed it never ran on 60", but 70" straight out of the factory and it was uprated to 82" before it saw its first combat mssion.

[PLPM 216]

Then why wasn't WEP climb used for this data sheet? I'm honestly curious.

 

It was claimed it never ran on 60", but 70" straight out of the factory and it was uprated to 82" before it saw its first combat mssion.

 

Ok...

 

Where is this shown? I would like to check it myself.

 

I´ve seen several things about the P-38, but never heard about 82Hgs.

[SubRyan 5,556]

Then why wasn't WEP climb used for this data sheet? I'm honestly curious.

 

It is... You can scroll in the spreadsheet. If you don't want to scroll in the data sheet, then PM the forum admin to make spreadsheets double in length

 

It was claimed it never ran on 60", but 70" straight out of the factory and it was uprated to 82" before it saw its first combat mssion.

 

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

It was claimed it never ran on 60", but 70" straight out of the factory and it was uprated to 82" before it saw its first combat mssion.

60"hg was WEP when using 100 Octane fuel. 70"hg could be used when using 150 octane fuel (44-1 fuel. also was only available in Europe). there are lockheed tests showing higher manifold pressures (up to 90"hg for something like 8 hours) but there is no evidence that anything higher than 70" hg was used in combat.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Rumpullpus

[Ottobon 19,138]

60"hg was WEP when using 100 Octane fuel. 70"hg could be used when using 150 octane fuel (44-1 fuel. also was only available in Europe). there are lockheed tests showing higher manifold pressures (up to 90"hg for something like 8 hours) but there is no evidence that anything higher than 70" hg was used in combat.

 
 
I'm guessing due to the Europe only thing on 60" HG vs 70" HG, as well as the fact they are including P-38K as a premium they just went with standard setting for J/L
 
Haven't heard of 90" HG, but i know the only way to get info on 75" HG/2000hp is to pay Lockheed themselves for it, and using that setting would be debatable given simply that its heavily debated if that setting was or was not used as via 150 octane + field modification during the end of the Lightnings service in Europe...
 
So yeah, easier to just include the P-38K :p
 
From what i know of P-38 data they did atleast choose a good performance example for running 60" HG (as same planes with same setting still run better or worse in real life tests), so you can't fault them for that if the FM is setup to match the datasheet properly. 
 
 

That 6 second difference in climb speed to 25k feet sure warranted a BR difference of 1.0 compared to the G.

 
Main thing i would remind somebody if they compare The P-38L or P-38J datasheet to the P-38G, the WEP climbrate for the 38L and 38J are with full fuel (1118kg) while the G is stated as with 42% fuel (343kg)

 

 

Then why wasn't WEP climb used for this data sheet? I'm honestly curious.

 

It was claimed it never ran on 60", but 70" straight out of the factory and it was uprated to 82" before it saw its first combat mssion.

 

unverified claims don't mean much :/....

 

Mainly the part where people are coming up with 82 "HG and 90" HG when the Allison V-1710 in the P-38s made 2000hp with 75" HG dumbfounds me.  

 

I could support people wanting 150 octane performance of 70" if it was a great improvement, especially for the 38L, but the whole maximum "HG setting possible is a bit of a wild goose chase imo as even if Lockheed can sell you that info it would be a long journey to prove it was actually used in combat.  It would take actual footwork probably going beyond what you can find laying around on the internet with the possibility that once finally researched its all for naught as such claims were wives tales.

 

Point about 70" HG though, the 60" info they used on this aircraft is already extremely close to the only test i know for 70" HG (same top speed at alt etc, marginal difference in climbrate at SL, 200 fpm improvement in climb)... They may have not given us 60" HG but again they didn't pick a slouch of a 60" HG Lightning 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Ottobon

[SuperBulletEater 1]

The IAS is wrong...it's not 460 mph.more like something of 530mph(or537)from all the data I've read and researched

Also the last time I checked the M2s on the both J and L,they were still using the "old" M2s,that's just wrong,J as I remembered came in late 1943 and the L came in just before the p51d,which means both J and L should have the same M2s as those on the p47 and p51,hope you guys in charge of the modeling can adjust that

Edited October 29, 2015 by SuperBulletEater

[Angelofhell 145]

I'm curious to know why the maximum continuous power for the P-38J/L is the same as the G even thought hey have new chin intercoolers. Also why the maximum continuous is 100HP different between the P38E and P38G. Also why the P-38L has such a low Mach limit when it has dive flaps.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

I'm guessing due to the Europe only thing on 60" HG vs 70" HG, as well as the fact they are including P-38K as a premium they just went with standard setting for J/L
 
Haven't heard of 90" HG, but i know the only way to get info on 75" HG/2000hp is to pay Lockheed themselves for it, and using that setting would be debatable given simply that its heavily debated if that setting was or was not used as via 150 octane + field modification during the end of the Lightnings service in Europe...

 

yeah it was the report about 2,000hp that I was thinking about, but I didn't remember exactly what Hg they were using. doesn't really matter because like I said, no proof it was ever used outside of a lab environment and it probably shouldn't have 2,000hp in game. the P-38L should have 150 octane fuel though IMO (~1700hp). it desperately needs it. especially if its gonna face doras, griffon spits and other aircraft that are close to super prop territory. the dive limit really needs to be corrected as well if its going to be competitive. 490mph limit is slow, but manageable at BR 3.7 but at 4.7 that's lower than just about every aircraft. that and its slow climb rate means it will probably get slaughtered.

I'm curious to know why the maximum continuous power for the P-38J/L is the same as the G even thought hey have new chin intercoolers. Also why the maximum continuous is 100HP different between the P38E and P38G. Also why the P-38L has such a low Mach limit when it has dive flaps.

the larger intercoolers on the P-38J/L just allow the turbo to reach full RPM at higher altitudes without overheating. they don't cool the engines themselves. remember 1,100hp was the old military rating when the P-38 was first developed and the intercooler was originally designed with that limit in mind. while the engines increased in power in every new model, the intercooler remained the same until the J.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Rumpullpus

[Bringo_Gaboso 3,820]

tbh it doesnt matter if it was used in combat anymore 

 

look at the usa spit that's a strait up ufo boosts  or the fact the ho229 had hes 011 

 

still prefer well documented historical model in game though 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Bringo_Gaboso

[Markus752 3,354]

tbh it doesnt matter if it was used in combat anymore 

 

look at the usa spit that's a strait up ufo boosts  or the fact the ho229 had hes 011 

 

still prefer well documented historical model in game though 

 

Ho229 uses Jumo 004D's though..

[PLPM 216]

 

the larger intercoolers on the P-38J/L just allow the turbo to reach full RPM at higher altitudes without overheating. they don't cool the engines themselves. remember 1,100hp was the old military rating when the P-38 was first developed and the intercooler was originally designed with that limit in mind. while the engines increased in power in every new model, the intercooler remained the same until the J.

 

I don´t know why I always get touchy when people mention "overheating" in the 38, because I already know they´re referring to the "conservative" values, rather than the actual limits of the aircraft.

 

Still the "problems" about the overheating were from the air-intercoolers, and meant that higher pressures "couldn´t" be used until the Chin intercoolers were installed.

 

Btw, I remember a discussion regarding 70hgs in the 38L and that 150 octane wasn´t really necesary to achieve it.

 

Should I dig for it?

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

I don´t know why I always get touchy when people mention "overheating" in the 38, because I already know they´re referring to the "conservative" values, rather than the actual limits of the aircraft.

 

Still the "problems" about the overheating were from the air-intercoolers, and meant that higher pressures "couldn´t" be used until the Chin intercoolers were installed.

 

Btw, I remember a discussion regarding 70hgs in the 38L and that 150 octane wasn´t really necesary to achieve it.

 

Should I dig for it?

I get touchy when "overheating" is brought up at all with a lot of US aircraft. the Allison Engines in particular were well known and liked by pilots for running cooler than most. those along with the radial engines (as long as you weren't WEP climbing) should be the last engines to have heat problems. yet it seems we got it totally backwards in game.

 

about the 70" info. idk I guess if you really want. personally I am really tired of trying to correct gaijin anymore. even if I have all the docs and everything my bug reports rarely even show up in the thread anymore and even if by some small miracle I can word it just right to get past KotA there is little hope of the devs actually doing anything about it.

[PLPM 216]

I get touchy when "overheating" is brought up at all with a lot of US aircraft. the Allison Engines in particular were well known and liked by pilots for running cooler than most. those along with the radial engines.

 

LOL, yeah... all those people that think that no matter what, a plane will overheat on WEP and such cases.

 

I still love that graph of the 51 climbing as fast as it could, and not even having to opene the radiator, what was it? half-way?

 

Yet ingame we have lava injection, and people saying it´s "kinda" accurate.

[Silavite 1,218]

And the 75" test. (Dubious if this was ever used in combat)

I agree that 70" is the best setting for this plane.

[SubRyan 5,556]

 

And the 75" test. (Dubious if this was ever used in combat)

 

I agree that 70" is the best setting for this plane.

 

Those are for a P-38J

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

same engines, same combat weight. but yeah.

 

interesting that even the 60" on that chart is faster than what we got in the data sheet for 60" on the P-38J  nvm checked again and its still ~6mins to 20k ft on 60" in that chart

Edited November 2, 2015 by Rumpullpus