38 - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

SDOE General

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: 38
bomber Pilot	posted 02-27- 04:59 PM What happened to my 38 weep weep. IP: Logged
Pang Pilot	posted 02-27- 08:31 PM History prevails. This is the tough love of OPS, heh. IP: Logged
sandman Pilot	posted 02-27- 11:51 PM Hehe... serves you ham-fisters right. :-) It'll come, Bomber. Just don't yank so hard. cheers sand IP: Logged
nealg Pilot	posted 02-28- 11:30 AM Interesting note: last night, flew 3 missions in a 190 vs 38's. In each, I was able to out-turn the 38 at under 5000 ft., using throttle and rudders to control yo-yo. These were all extended turns, not brief, with the 38 flown by several different pilots...all experienced in SDOE. Didn't seem like that was right, to me. Is it? ------------------ nealg=FC= IP: Logged
esox Pilot	posted 02-28- 12:48 PM Maybe its me, but in the scramble missions in a 38 against 190s it doesn't matter if I am slow or fast, flaps up or down- in a sustained flat turn, the 190s will eventually out-turn me and shoot me down. If the 190 goes vertical, he's mine. Either the 190 is turning faster than it should or the 38 is way too much of a dog at slow speeds. I haven't tested this flying the 190 yet. I'll let you know what I find. ------------------ -< -< -< -< Esox=FC= IP: Logged
Mk10 225th Pilot	posted 02-28- 02:16 PM I'm not so sure a '38 should out-turn a 190. I think a '51 could actually out-turn a 190 in some instances, but then...I'm going a little out of my envelope of knowledge. Tail! Help us! Mk10=225th= IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 04:05 PM The p38 has a very high wing loading.. 53 lbs per square inch versus 39 for the 190A3 and 49 for the 190A8. It actually has a higher weight to wing area than the Ju88-g6 night fighter ! Wing loading isn't the only predictor of turn rate.. the combat flaps on the p38 also help but you're still looking at the fact it's a 17,500 lb plane going against a 7650lb plane. We have heaps of technical information on the p38, including center of gravity and elevator area and travel which to a large part determine how it handles in a turn. Zur gave it even more elevator travel than the real one after the negative feedback we got from the previous version. I've come across a few anecdotal reports of 'p38s out turning zeros' which has more to do with the structural limitations of the zero than anything else IMHO. (some variants the pilot would rip the wings off before he could pull enough G's to gray out). One historic advantage of the p38 to the 190A was it had a higher ceiling. The 5.3 p38 currently tops out at about 20,000 feet we'll get it up to 44,000 feet in the next version. (the kind of missions we fly in SDOE I rarely ever get up that high though). TS IP: Logged
Gunner Pilot	posted 02-28- 04:32 PM I must agree Neal, The 38 is somewhat of a dog now. Its still the best gun platform but it turns like a battleship. I don't know about its ability to sustain more damge than it use too, which was needed, because I don't like to fly it online due to its lack of performance. ------------------ (Kill Or Be Killed) -=BAB=- Gunner IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 02-28- 05:08 PM One aspect of the 38 that we cannot model here is that in a turn, pilots could slow the inboard engine, and slighty increase the outboard engine, and get a much tighter turn, especially at lower speeds. We cannot do this right now and it really does effect the flexability of the 38. BTW, our turns are far more vertical than the real planes were.... a full 90 deg. bank was not something that you should try and do, that is why adjusting the engines like that will work. Also, if you needed it, you could throw the trim into the turn as well, something else that is almost impossible to do right now unless you are using a stick or yoke that has more than 4 axis. I still do believe the 190 is way too uber though... considering that almost all I have heard about it says it could not out perform the 51... I could be wrong, but the way she is now is rather disturbing. And she is even less than she was in 5.2..... ------------------ Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 02-28- 05:32 PM I have trouble out turning the 190 in a P-51, let alone the P-38. Am I that bad? Probably. But it would be good for the ego if someone could confirm that the SDOE 190 can turn that well. Could the real ones? IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 05:50 PM It could be the 190 turns to well.. can you fellows give the 5.4 beta on the OPP forum a try out and tell me how it compares? A number of changes didn't make it into 5.3 AFAIK the 190A4 and P51 should have similar turning abilities. TS [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 02-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 02-28- 05:51 PM Well we either: a) burn all the books we disagree with or b) respect that each of us reads differing information and therefore no one can claim what 'IS' the proper way for a plane to fly. As I see it, it can rest entirely on the bias of the author on what is a good plane and also his sources of info. We base our faith on books that also based their faith on available technical information and recorded accounts. How well the author did it is subjective. So, some of what you learn can be wrong or misleading, but how will you know? Here are a few samples for the planes mentioned. "...gradually we admitted that the fw190 was an absolutely outstanding fighter, with no deficiencies whatsoever......a rate of roll that hardly any allied aircraft could match" "..pulling g's was the mustang's only serious weakness. It was all too easy to haul back just that little bit too hard and. with no warning, cause sudden flow breakdown. The departure was wholly uncontrolled, an uncommanded roll of 270deg being typical. (useful in escaping a 90 on your tail)" "P38...these flaps were needed counter the wing loading which in later versions reached 67lb/sq ftm compared with for example, 26.5 for a spitfire mkV.....excellent performance at all altitudes....In dives to high speeds, p38's were among the first aircraft to encounter a compressibility problem....a special combat setting of the main flaps was introduced, which added wing area and camber...this enabled one easily to black out in level turns..." You book(s) may vary. ------------------ IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 06:13 PM "The Lockheed P38Lighting was a strange twin-engine, twin-boom design. Very fast at altitude, it was generally outmatched by the German single-seaters in one-versus-one combat. Fortunately for its pilots, one-versus-one combats rarely occured, and teamwork compensated for many of its shortcomings." Mike Spick Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 02-28- 06:42 PM Actually from what I have read, the 38's performance is closer than those in previous versions. The biggest drawback I see to the current version is that it seems overly sensitive to hits in the tail. (This was the weak spot of the plane, but damage wise, I believe that 5.2 (at least on the tail) was closer than 5.3a. The 38's biggest strengths were range (doesnt apply in this game), ceiling, payload and no convergence point. As noted above, it is not a pure fighter. If damage to the tail wasn't changed, then it needs to be beefed up. I can live with the FM but the tail needs to be fixed. Right now it is an easy kill. (Too easy IMHO, at least until things like hits in the Prestone tanks and such can bring down the other planes....). Which version of the 38 had the rocket tubes mounted under (to the right of?) the center fusilage? RE: Varying the speed of the engines. A while back I ran beta 4 of MH's patch. It allows for split throttles. (Only thing is, with my quadrant one was back for 0% the other was forward for %0. Course the patch hasnt been released yet either... Don't worry, we can will there from here... How accurate is the modP38?? ------------------ Snickers =FC= IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 06:43 PM Also of note, by June 1944 the germans fighters were outnumbered by allied fighters 6 to 1. Damage models weren't changed at all. [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 02-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 02-28- 06:57 PM So if the 38 was outmatched do we make missions that favour greater numbers of 38's to axis fighters or leave the 38 out altogether? This could be the time to get some more allied fighters built, a P47 would be a good one here as well as a P51b. ------------------ IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 07:05 PM Safe to say 5.3 TOTALLY unbalanced all the missions.. the Spit V is no match for the 190A4, the Ju88 no longer turns better than the p51, the p51 is much faster than the 190A4, the Spit IX is no longer uber etc.. The Spit IX and the 190A4 should be even matchups (they were in real life). I haven't tried them against each other in 5.3 yet. There's no rule that says both sides need the same number of planes.. 4 spit V against 3 190A4s is reasonable, starting out extra p38s above bombers flying escort with the germans flying up to meet them is doable too. Or how about 5 p38s escorting two bombers with three 190s attacking from above? We'll have to suffer through some unbalanced missions until we get some new ones figured out though. TS [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 02-28-2000).] IP: Logged
esox Pilot	posted 02-28- 07:18 PM TS, Spyder, MK, Snickers, Mir Thanks! I have a better understanding of both the historic 38 and what you OPP guys have to go through to get reliable data. TS's ideas for diferent types of missions make sense. Maybe we also just need to fly the 38 diferently. I have heard that it was a plane to swoop down on others in. And that when it lost all it's altitude, it wasn't near as good. I think some of us just got used to that plane and felt comfy in it . Now we need to relearn some things. ------------------ -< -< -< -< Esox=FC= IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 02-28- 08:17 PM A correction to one of my comments.. although the spit IX should have similar top speed and climb rate as the 190A4 it also turns better. So when balancing for 5.3, if you replace the Spit V with the Spit IX on your mission it'll tip the scales in favour of the allies you may have to compensate somehow. TS IP: Logged
nealg Pilot	posted 02-29- 12:06 AM Well, that answers my question....thanks! It did answer my question, didn't it? ------------------ nealg=FC= IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 02-29- 12:24 AM TAIL! Thanks for saying everthing "I" would have but in a much nicer way! A missing key to this discussion is missing ... "combat flaps". My research and sources (damn them all) all point to the 38 being at best "equal to" a FW190 on innital turn speed. However as Tail stated, your hauling 17,000 to 7000 lbs. of aircraft around ... do the math ... which do you think will lose? With juditial use of flaps ... I will assure you, you can out-turn a FW ... you will however, suffer severe loss of airspeed (as one should) ... As you can imagine ... the toughest part of FM'ing is dispelling the "myths..opinions..and impressions" from the "facts..specifications..and math" We're not done yet guys ... every revision ...every additional "tid-bit" Tail and I stumble accross ... brings FS "that" much closer to "fidelity" ... ...We "all" still have lots to learn about all this wonderfull stuff! IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 02-29- 12:25 AM TAIL! Thanks for saying everthing "I" would have but in a much nicer way! A missing key to this discussion is missing ... "combat flaps". My research and sources (damn them all) all point to the 38 being at best "equal to" a FW190 on innital turn speed. However as Tail stated, your hauling 17,000 to 7000 lbs. of aircraft around ... do the math ... which do you think will lose? With juditial use of flaps ... I will assure you, you can out-turn a FW ... you will however, suffer severe loss of airspeed (as one should) ... As you can imagine ... the toughest part of FM'ing is dispelling the "myths..opinions..and impressions" from the "facts..specifications..and math" We're not done yet guys ... every revision ...every additional "tid-bit" Tail and I stumble accross ... brings FS "that" much closer to "fidelity" ... ...We "all" still have lots to learn about all this wonderfull stuff! IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 02-29- 01:08 AM Gosh do some guys need to be hit on the head with a hammer or what? ------------------ IP: Logged
Mk10 225th Pilot	posted 02-29- 01:12 AM No. Just sneaky arachnids. EEEEeeeek! There goes one now! Mk10=225th= IP: Logged
bomber Pilot	posted 02-29- 08:27 PM Who cares how it turns it an unstable gun platform now that's my complaint. IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 02-29- 09:12 PM I guess I am missing something bomber... She is just as stable as before, just not the turner she used to be. Please explain the unstable gun platform.... ------------------ Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged
bomber Pilot	posted 02-29- 09:21 PM She twitches in way she did not before. IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center