Jump to content

P-38 Lightning


Eviscerador

Recommended Posts

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 by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

glaciergirl-1000x563-Stage.jpg

 

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

Mainboard: ASUS Maximus X Hero Intel Z 370

CPU: Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.0 GHz

Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000

Graphics Card: ASUS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB

Monitor ASUS PA 329 32" @ 4K

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 256 GB

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 4 TB

Windows 10 - 64 V. 2004

CH Pro combatstick, throttle and pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
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

  • Like 1

PC: 9980XE @ 64GB RAM /2080Ti, Samsung C49RG90

Joystick bases: VKB GFIII, FSSB R3L, Brunner CLS-E, Virpil Mongoos CM2

Joystick grips: Realsimulator (F-18CGRH, F-16SGRH-CE), VKB (MCG Pro, F-14, KG-12), Virpil Warbrd

Throttles: Virpil CM2, Kantorrin,

Other: TrackIR, TM MFDx2 (Cubesim Screenx2), Virpil Control Panel 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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 by grafspee
  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...