Lockheed P-38G-1

[Rapitor 10,702]

no russian bomber has FM yet

fixed for you.

 

Since turnfighting with bomber is not a necessity, a place holder is fine instead of the perfect FM.

Except for russian, who can turnfight P-36 and P-40 and win...

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

found an interesting page from what looks like a letter on field testing that was done on the P-38J (and some other planes). i know its not the G model but the engines themselves are identical other than larger intercoolers right?

 

sorry its a bit small and might be hard to read.

 

 

there's also this with more information on climb rates and stall speeds

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-12687.html

[Salen_Stormwing 737]

Oh, right, because ferrets love digging around for random info, I found a few more items of interest while looking for those previous roll rates for the P-38.

 

I found a Flight Operation Manual for the P-38, which has SOME technical data. It's really neat, so any prop-heads who want to take a look can. Enjoy: http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/historical/p-38%20TO-01-75FF-1.pdf

 

Or, have this one, which even talks about Rockets available for the P-38. *coughpayattentiondevscough* http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/historical/p-38%2051-127-1.pdf

 

Lots of little nuggets of info into those manuals, and also a few awkward feelings at some of the artwork.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Oh, right, because ferrets love digging around for random info, I found a few more items of interest while looking for those previous roll rates for the P-38.

 

I found a Flight Operation Manual for the P-38, which has SOME technical data. It's really neat, so any prop-heads who want to take a look can. Enjoy: http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/historical/p-38%20TO-01-75FF-1.pdf

 

Or, have this one, which even talks about Rockets available for the P-38. *coughpayattentiondevscough* http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/historical/p-38%2051-127-1.pdf

 

Lots of little nuggets of info into those manuals, and also a few awkward feelings at some of the artwork.

good bits about the engines on page 36 in that manual also some funny American English to British translations on page 51 :lol:

plus some of that artwork is pretty racist lol.

 

more charts on rate of climb and optimal cruising speeds after page 53. unfortunately i was hoping to find something on turn rates...

 

EDIT: found something interesting in the second manual about descending spins. page 81

 

 

the spin is fast, completing one turn every 3 seconds and losing about 1,000ft per turn. although indicated air speed is as low as 100mph or less, the rate of vertical decent is over 200mph.

[Salen_Stormwing 737]

good bits about the engines on page 36 in that manual also some funny American English to British translations on page 51 :lol:

plus some of that artwork is pretty racist lol.

 

more charts on rate of climb and optimal cruising speeds after page 53. unfortunately i was hoping to find something on turn rates...

 

EDIT: found something interesting in the second manual about descending spins. page 81

 

Oh, yeah, the artwork is... yeah, like I said... it's awkward in that "It's from the early part of the 20th century". And yeah, no turn rates, but yes, the fact that the P-38 could turn 360 degrees in 3 seconds, by sacrificing 1000 feet, that's awesome. I have no clue how you'd do that in game, but it's AWESOME.

 

Figured some prop-heads would enjoy the manuals. They're very big on lots of little details, except turn rates. Eh, can't get everything I guess.

[Wolfstanus 567]

P38 testing
Basic controls and "realistic" controls.itsnot even close to being accurate. A b25/a20 turns faster. All fighters currently out perform the thing. It's supposed to be superior to the p40e... And it's not even close in its current state.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tupRb4NiUNk

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Oh, yeah, the artwork is... yeah, like I said... it's awkward in that "It's from the early part of the 20th century". And yeah, no turn rates, but yes, the fact that the P-38 could turn 360 degrees in 3 seconds, by sacrificing 1000 feet, that's awesome. I have no clue how you'd do that in game, but it's AWESOME.

 

Figured some prop-heads would enjoy the manuals. They're very big on lots of little details, except turn rates. Eh, can't get everything I guess.

ya turn rates for the P-38 are extremely hard to find for whatever reason.

 

im not sure how much that little fact from the manual would help us though as it looks more like a controlled free fall more than an actual turn (over 200mph decent is pretty significant its practically dropping out of the sky). but in ether case it shows just how stable the P-38 really is and just how easy the controls should be. it should take ALOT more than a simple high speed turn to put yourself into a uncontrollable spin.

 

i cant help but feel that the elevator authority is under-performing on the P-38. i mean, its probably twice the size of most aircraft (even other twin engine planes) and has alot of surface area, but still when you pull up on the stick its like most of it isn't even there.

 

i have a modeling program at home for aerospace manufacturing (im an aerospace engineering student) and it may be possible for me to do some lift/force calculations if i can get some dimensions of the elevator.

 

anyone have an account for http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/p-38-dimensions-9259.html

that picture is just what i need but its too small for me to read...

EDIT: nvm found another one. gonna see what i can do and come back.

 

EDIT2: ooook so might have tryed to bite off a bit more than i could chew. it doesn't look like i have the analysis package needed to do any kind of lift or drag calculations. i could do it by hand but..... well that's ALOT of math and i just really don't want to do it lol. with the dimensions i found though i managed to model something that looks very similar and should be the right size and its very large, around 3485in² infact.

[Salen_Stormwing 737]

Well, I couldn't find any data on how much elevator you could give a P-38 to get it to do a wonderful aerial loop, but I did find a video of someone flying one, and showing the aircraft off... and HE does a loop in one.

 

Loop starts here at 17:16

 

After 30 seconds, he's done a complete loop.

 

As for finding a good example of turning, the best I could find was  a video of Great Planes - P-38 Lightning, where the prototype Lightning was first doing maneuverings, including a very pretty turn.

 

Turn starts here at 8:08

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Well, I couldn't find any data on how much elevator you could give a P-38 to get it to do a wonderful aerial loop, but I did find a video of someone flying one, and showing the aircraft off... and HE does a loop in one.

 

Loop starts here at 17:16

 

After 30 seconds, he's done a complete loop.

 

As for finding a good example of turning, the best I could find was  a video of Great Planes - P-38 Lightning, where the prototype Lightning was first doing maneuverings, including a very pretty turn.

 

Turn starts here at 8:08

that's not a bad video of a slow turn (and with only one engine running too!). i don't think you can even keep the plane airborne with only one engine right now. last time i had to limp back to base with one engine i couldn't make it as i was slowly losing altitude.

[Wolfstanus 567]

If you have "combat flight sim 2 (or 3) download the "av history 1% p38" they had data sheets etc to get all their moded/new models to within 1% of an error rate with their flight models. The files may yield some info and it may have data sheets too in excel formats.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

still no luck finding any charts on the turn rate :(

 

found this though: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-tactical-trials.html

 

 

3.    Conclusions:     It is concluded that:

                 a.    All conclusions and recommendations applying to the P-38F, apply to the P-38G.

                 b.    Inasmuch as the general maneuverability of this aircraft is probably the lowest of any type of current fighter aircraft, and in view of the competition facing the P-38G in the European Theatre, all possible effort should be made to improve its rate of climb and high speed.

                 c.    The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180° in 360° circle) due to maneuver flaps.

                 d.    Buffeting was noticeable but at higher speeds and accelerations than in the P-38F.

                 e.    The P-38G will outzoom the P-38F.

                 f.    The P-38G will hold its altitude in turns at thirty-five-thousand (35,000) feet, whereas the P-38F loses altitude.

                 g.    The P-38G holds its advantages over the P-38F at all altitudes.

                 h.    The lack of sufficient intercooling holds down the performance of the P-38G as well as the P-38F.

          4.    RECOMMENDATIONS:     It is recommended that:

                         The same recommendations applying to the P-38F, apply to the P-38G.

i don't really know what they mean by "will close 180deg in 360deg circle" but i would guess that its turn rate is probably 2x tighter than the F model since that is what they were testing against.

 

though still don't know how tight the F model turns lol.

 

EDIT: found a very large and lengthy conversation on the P-38F/G on Warbirds forums. dates back to 2010 and much of the information we have already found is gathered there (and perhaps more? its very long included is some testing it seems). seems like they were having ALOT of trouble with their P-38 as well. feels like there is just not enough hard data out there to get a full picture and gaijin may need to relax their standards a tad if they even hope to get something close to accurate.

 

http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-38359.html

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

Interesting document:

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

4067 ft/s climb rate converts to 20.67 m/s climb rate.

[Taranok 3,920]

Not really charts and graphs, but sourced descriptions here.

 

Of particular note is this quote here:

 

However, in air combat over Germany, the Lightning was generally outclassed by the more maneuverable Fw 190 and the later marks of the Bf 109, especially at medium and low altitudes. However, the Lightning had a much faster top speed, a higher rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. Once pilots had perfected fighting tactics which suited the Lightning's unique characteristics, they had better success. The usual tactics was for the P-38 to climb to a high altitude and then dive down on the enemy, attacking him with a burst of firepower and then zoom back up out of harm's way. The later versions of the P-38 were equipped with maneuvering flaps, and when their pilots learned how to use these flaps properly, the P-38 could hold its own when maneuvering against German fighters, often being able to turn inside their Fw 190 and Bf 109 opponents.

 

Which version of the Lightning had maneuvering flaps?

 

Let's just take a quote from here.

 

P-38G models had strengthened Fowler flaps which could be used at combat speeds up to 250 m.p.h. to tighten the turning radius. In Europe, pilots of the big Lightnings now found that they could turn inside of the smaller German fighters, particularly at low altitudes. They also had more powerful engines (a 100 hp increase). Production began in August 1942. The "H" model was similar.

 

The G model was out-turning Focke-Wulfs and BF 109s while also outclimbing and outrunning them.

 

That second link isn't particularly well sourced, granted.  So let's look back at that first website here.

 

The P-38F-15-LO introduced combat flaps which could be rapidly extended to 8 degrees during maneuvers to tighten the turning radius.

 

It's very difficult to find charts on turning radii, but the current P-38 in the game is base wrong.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Not really charts and graphs, but sourced descriptions here.

 

Of particular note is this quote here:

 

 

Which version of the Lightning had maneuvering flaps?

 

Let's just take a quote from here.

 

 

The G model was out-turning Focke-Wulfs and BF 109s while also outclimbing and outrunning them.

 

That second link isn't particularly well sourced, granted.  So let's look back at that first website here.

 

 

It's very difficult to find charts on turning radii, but the current P-38 in the game is base wrong.

hey ALRIGHT! good find.

 

i was finding similar reports in places but not as credible as that.

[Salen_Stormwing 737]

Okay, more data-mining from your favorite Lightning Ferret.

 

I found a document with a metric boat-load of P-38 indepth knowledge, mostly on the mechanics of the aircraft.

 

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/P38/P38_redo.pdf

 

Someone more mechanically inclined might be able to tease some data out of it, but there's a lot of stats for ares of control surfaces that are littered throughout the document, as well as how they are connected and what not. Like how much area you have on the wings without and with flaps. But if you want to know the square footage of the elevator, you can find it here. I know someone was looking for that somewhere on the forum. Maybe it was in the P-38 FM forum area.

 

Anyways, there's some extra info that might be useful on the website for other aircraft. Not sure how big a help it might be, but always nice for extra info for things. Worth a look.

[Sidiros 4,914]

Okay, more data-mining from your favorite Lightning Ferret.

 

I found a document with a metric boat-load of P-38 indepth knowledge, mostly on the mechanics of the aircraft.

 

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/P38/P38_redo.pdf

 

 

 

Nice find!    On page 17 it gives the elevator deflection degrees....   Up 23, down 8.5

 

Same with Aileron and rudder specifics.

 

Awesome!

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Okay, more data-mining from your favorite Lightning Ferret.

 

I found a document with a metric boat-load of P-38 indepth knowledge, mostly on the mechanics of the aircraft.

 

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/P38/P38_redo.pdf

 

Someone more mechanically inclined might be able to tease some data out of it, but there's a lot of stats for ares of control surfaces that are littered throughout the document, as well as how they are connected and what not. Like how much area you have on the wings without and with flaps. But if you want to know the square footage of the elevator, you can find it here. I know someone was looking for that somewhere on the forum. Maybe it was in the P-38 FM forum area.

 

Anyways, there's some extra info that might be useful on the website for other aircraft. Not sure how big a help it might be, but always nice for extra info for things. Worth a look.

ya that was me, i calculated, using the dimensions found, that the elevator had about 3,485in² of surface area (or about 24.20ft²) and the article says its 24.5ft² so i was pretty close.

 

its a very large elevator and it should command alot of power and looking at the angler movement it should turn very well performing a loop or turning but its weakness is pulling down.

 

also found it interesting how larger the flaps are (the fowler i believe) at 40ft²  they are even larger and again supports my reasoning that the P-38G should be turning MUCH tighter than it does now.

[Salen_Stormwing 737]

Heck, might as well post a few more things of interest:

 

P-38e NACA Comparison of Rolling Velocities Chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38e-rolling-velocities.jpg

 

P-38 Stall Tests: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38G_42-12690_FS-M-19-1492-A.pdf

 

As a side note, I have no clue what Rolling Velocities are, but it sounds like it has something to do with how fast the plane goes in turns, so it sounds noteworthy.

[Taranok 3,920]

I like that chart on the P-38E roll rates.  Most notably where it has different aircraft, such as the P-36 Hawk and F4F-3 Wildcat

 

In fact, that chart helps dispel some of my misconceptions about the roll rates on those aircraft, which seem to be more or less accurate at certain speeds.  Also, that Historical versus Arcade apparently has the same roll rates at a given speed.

 

Good to know.

[Danneskjold 3,092]

Any progress on working the flight model for the P-38G?  I imagine once you have it set, you almost have the P-38J and L models set, too.

[Danneskjold 3,092]

Sorry for the duel post, but here's some more testing:

 

 

The XP-38G is incapable of reaching its top speed over 20,000 feet either in Military Power or WEP. 

 

 

Furthermore, the engine "Coolants" heat up far, far, far quicker than the engine or oil does.  The coolants hit overheat temps while the engine and oil temps are about 1/3rd the max safe temp.  So either the coolant is bugged, or the engine / oil temp is bugged.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Sorry for the duel post, but here's some more testing:

 

 

The XP-38G is incapable of reaching its top speed over 20,000 feet either in Military Power or WEP. 

 

 

Furthermore, the engine "Coolants" heat up far, far, far quicker than the engine or oil does.  The coolants hit overheat temps while the engine and oil temps are about 1/3rd the max safe temp.  So either the coolant is bugged, or the engine / oil temp is bugged.

you should make a ticket on the FM&DM bug report section.

[Rapitor 10,702]

you should make a ticket on the FM&DM bug report section.

I am pretty sure that there is a few tickets already submitted, or still on the waiting for approval about that.

 

This post is mostly about perf. charts, but this does not mean that people waited for this post to complain about P-38 FM / perf since the release I think.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

hopefully i can get MAGE or someone else to answer this but does anyone know if the manifold pressure is going to be fixed in 1.35?

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

hey guys i was looking over this data sheet to do some testing on the current P-38 we have now in 1.33 and eveything was actually matching up which in itself was a bit odd, but then i noticed something odd on the chart.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-tactical-charts.pdf

 

the chart seems to have more than one climb rate test there. at first glance i assumed the faster one was the P-38G with WEP, HOWEVER the RPMs are the same through both tests (the manifold pressure shouldn't change much as there were still issues concerning the small intercoolers, but the RPM on the engine should definitely be increased when using WEP). i know this chart was used to compare the P-38F to the P-38G so maybe they have both climb rates listed?? in which case i may be (and our testers might have been) using the P-38F climb rate instead of the P-38G.

 

also (IF they are different aircraft) i wouldn't expect just a big difference between the two aircraft in climb rates as even the airforce said the two were approximately the same. maybe 30seconds to 1 min wasn't a big deal for them?