P-38 Lightning

[grafspee]

Oh. You'd better go tell the veterans of the 20th, 55th, 479th, 367th, 370th and 474th FGs. They seem to be under the misapprehension that they flew P-38s over the D-Day landings.

 

P-38 did lots of bombers escorts prior to P-51D era. And even after p-38s were escorting still.

BTW those 8h missions had to exhausted for p-51s pilots, mean while in b-17 pilot could probably make short nap while second was flying, im not saying that in b-17 was easy but taking short break never do harm :P

Edited February 14, 2020 by grafspee

[Capt. Caveman]

Instant buy!!

[Jester986]

Oh. You'd better go tell the veterans of the 20th, 55th, 479th, 367th, 370th and 474th FGs. They seem to be under the misapprehension that they flew P-38s over the D-Day landings.

 

Pacific subforum...

[DD_Fenrir]

Pacific subforum...

 

Pointing out P-38 was not exclusive to operations in the Far East and would be very much welcome to the currently available ETO map...

[Jester986]

Yea but I don't need sarcasm about it. If people want to fly it on Normandy great. But there's also nothing wrong with me pointing out that in regards to it being used in the Pacific there is no appropriate map in development or discussed. So far we have Marianas confirmed and iwo jima as shown in development but not yet confirmed.

[=475FG= Dawger]

As my signature makes very obvious, a well modeled P-38 would be a dream come true in DCS.

 

As a bonus, the counter rotating engines would make the lack of appropriate torque effects in propeller driven DCS aircraft pretty much a non-issue, except when single engine where the torqueless FM would make it easier than real life.

[CaptJodan]

I could certainly understand the need for something like a Zero before the P-38 (to have some foes), but this aircraft should probably be near the top of the WWII development list. It would certainly round out the top 3 late war US land-based aircraft used during the conflict.

 

A childhood favorite of mine, to be sure.

[Ercoupe]

"(to have some foes)"

As has been pointed out, already, the airplane does not need a Zero to have an oppponant in here. It was used in Europe. It was used in North Africa. It was used in Italy. It has "foes." The 109 and 190. Why would we have to wait for a Zero before we can fly a P-38 in here?

[ac5]

Come on, the last one of the american "Pursuit trio" and the fighter with most japanese air kills in the Pacific Theatre. Also one of the few WW2 fighters to be produced along the whole war.

 

Twin turbosupercharged engines, unmistakeable profile, deadly nose armament and capable of either long range fighter sweeps, interception, bombing and strafing, all on the same package.

 

It needs to be in the game.

 

 

Completely agree! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[alado]

I want one :)

[Jester986]

"(to have some foes)"

As has been pointed out, already, the airplane does not need a Zero to have an oppponant in here. It was used in Europe. It was used in North Africa. It was used in Italy. It has "foes." The 109 and 190. Why would we have to wait for a Zero before we can fly a P-38 in here?

 

Because we're talking about the Pacific theater here. While it would be great that it can pull double duty in both theaters and its fair to mention that, a conversation strictly about its European merits belongs in that sub forum. Because of the maps we have inbound and the likely focus on carrier combat priority for Pacific aircraft should be given to the most influential of that campaign. Otherwise it would be like if I went on the European subforum and said we needed the F4F because they flew off British carriers and did fleet protection during the invasion.

[horseback]

P-38 did lots of bombers escorts prior to P-51D era. And even after p-38s were escorting still.

BTW those 8h missions had to exhausted for p-51s pilots, mean while in b-17 pilot could probably make short nap while second was flying, im not saying that in b-17 was easy but taking short break never do harm :P

Yes, about a month prior.

[VAF [136] Striker]

Love the P-38 and fully support anyone that would decide to develop it!

[KomandorAdam]

Please feel free to spam in the comments on the FlyingIron Simulations website that we want the P-38 to DCS! Link to their website: https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/msfs-p-38-lightning

[Lynchsl62]

On 2/14/2020 at 4:22 PM, grafspee said:

BTW those 8h missions had to exhausted for p-51s pilots, mean while in b-17 pilot could probably make short nap while second was flying, im not saying that in b-17 was easy but taking short break never do harm :P

Being in a B-17 was really uncomfortable for the crew as it was not heated and was so cold everything froze. They were not allowed to take drink on board as it would freeze at altitude and there was the issue of dealing with the “waste”. Reading a book “Mission to Berlin” the overwhelming impression of all the crew is being constantly cold.

 

One of the reasons the P-38 was not as successful against German heartland was again the cold, the heating system was not effective against the extreme cold at high altitude, whereas in the MTO and PTO the combat altitudes were typically lower

 

The P-38 would make an excellent option in the Warbirds and would be a day one purchase for me

[Mogster]

1 hour ago, Lynchsl62 said:

Being in a B-17 was really uncomfortable for the crew as it was not heated and was so cold everything froze. They were not allowed to take drink on board as it would freeze at altitude and there was the issue of dealing with the “waste”. Reading a book “Mission to Berlin” the overwhelming impression of all the crew is being constantly cold.

 

One of the reasons the P-38 was not as successful against German heartland was again the cold, the heating system was not effective against the extreme cold at high altitude, whereas in the MTO and PTO the combat altitudes were typically lower

 

The P-38 would make an excellent option in the Warbirds and would be a day one purchase for me

I can imagine that keeping warm when you can stand and walk about a bit is an entirely different situation to being sat down and immobile for the whole mission. I’d guess operating the controls in a P38 will probably require dexterity that will prevent very thick gloves also.

 

From what I’ve read pilots were debilitated by the cold flying long missions at altitude in the P38. Frostbite was a very real problem.

[Callsign112]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:40 AM, KomandorAdam said:

Please feel free to spam in the comments on the FlyingIron Simulations website that we want the P-38 to DCS! Link to their website: https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/msfs-p-38-lightning

Just did this, you should too!

[DD_Fenrir]

As a P-38 aficionado I am not particularly enamoured of FlyingIrons external 3D model; the chin intake modelling looks just plain wrong. 

Actual:

 

 

FlyingIron:

[AG-51_Razor]

It very much depends on which P-38 they are modeling. The earlier versions had a very slanted intake and the later models had a more pronounced "flat face" intake.

[Eviscerador]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:12 PM, Lynchsl62 said:

Being in a B-17 was really uncomfortable for the crew as it was not heated and was so cold everything froze. They were not allowed to take drink on board as it would freeze at altitude and there was the issue of dealing with the “waste”. Reading a book “Mission to Berlin” the overwhelming impression of all the crew is being constantly cold.

 

One of the reasons the P-38 was not as successful against German heartland was again the cold, the heating system was not effective against the extreme cold at high altitude, whereas in the MTO and PTO the combat altitudes were typically lower

 

The P-38 would make an excellent option in the Warbirds and would be a day one purchase for me

Yep, the main problem was that the heating had to came from the engines through the nacelles and the wings. Also the radiator and intercoolers were so efficient that they overcooled both the refrigerant and the oil with the usual high RPM lean mixture for cruise at high altitudes.

In the end the Lightning pilots on the ETO had to fly with B17 heating suits wired to the AC gen to avoid frostbite, but those mittons had a problem, you needed to operate a lot of dials and switches and doint it with the heating mittons was an issue.

As a Lightning Ace said, imagine you are in a Lightning after 50 hours of dual engine fighter training, on your first mission over the ETO. At 36.000 ft, -50 ºC, trying to get everything working, lean mixture, good RPM, checking fuel and external tanks, managing the turbochargers and the throttle, with your body on the verge of frostbite. Suddenly you are bounced, with a bit of luck you were paying attention and you see the bandits, or some other guy does. You then proceed to:

• Take off your mittons
• Switch the tanks to internal (in a rotary between your legs)
• Drop tanks
• Increase RPM
• Increase Turbo RPM
• Increase mixture
• THEN increase throttle. failing one of the previous steps will mean a botched engine, probably both.
• Turn on your gunsight (bulbs didn't last for long, so you had it switched off for cruise)
• Set all guns to fire
• If you are still alive by then, fight.

In a Mustang you could actually hit RPM and throttle to max and forget about everything else.

The lightning was a superb fighter, but it was complex and needed special training. Anyone could jump in a Mustang and be a good pilot. The lightining was a bit harder. It had the same problems than the Thunderbolt, pilots just prefered the Mustang because it was easier.

On the other hand in the PTO, you didn't have to climb over 20.000 ft, most squadrons were trainied by Charles Lindberg on good mixture and engine management and the American fuel was much better than the english one (the english one was so acidic it corroded the lightning tanks.) Hence its success there.

[Ercoupe]

On 10/18/2021 at 11:55 AM, AG-51_Razor said:

It very much depends on which P-38 they are modeling. The earlier versions had a very slanted intake and the later models had a more pronounced "flat face" intake.

I think it's kind of obvious that he's showing the same versions of the airplane in both the real and Flying Irons pictures. Both have the deep chin intakes of the J and L models. They are definately different. I've never seen that middle inlet look square, like that, on any P-38. Other than that, it's a beautiful model. But, DAMN, would I love to fly a DCS Lightning. 

[MADLOU1]

I don't care which p38 DCS models or what theatre, I just want the plane!!!

[Nomatic]

Yeah, a P-38 would be an insta-buy for me, and would get me to fly way more WW2

[grafspee]

Actualy i care what version would it be, i would not want to fight later German's super fighters with early version of P-38. So P-38 version from 44/45 would make me the most happy.

Edited December 30, 2021 by grafspee

[FlankerKiller]

44-46 is the era that's been simulated, so definitely want one from that era. I always loved it in other Sims for ground attack because of how stable it was with the counter rotating props and all. I would love to get a much better feel for it.