Jump to content

P-38 Lightning


Recommended Posts

Not 100% correct ..... the Early model Lightnings supplied to the RAF (from a French contract) did not have counter rotating props or turbo superchargers for that matter.

 

True, though it was different enough from the later variants that the USAAF designated it the P-322 instead of the P-38. One could be forgiven for separating it off from the employed P-38 models. :)

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RAF were the ones who requested that the engines both turn in the same direction for logistical reasons; the French order was based on the numbers achieved by the original XP-38 before the Army wrecked it, but their aircraft weren't going to be delivered before 1942 in any case, unlike the Hawk 75 and 81s that were en route when France fell. AFAIK, the turbosuperchargers were simply not available in the numbers desired to foreign customers at that time, being reserved primarily for the B-17 and B-24 (both of which were supplied to the RAF pre-Pearl Harbor). Given that the AAF castrated the P-39 of its turbosupercharger at about the same time, it can be assumed that there just weren't enough to go around.

 

Had the RAF received Lightnings with 'handed' engines, they might well have been happier with them, but they were probably looking for an excuse to back out of the contract because they felt that Lockheed had been less than ethical concerning a large contract for Hudson bombers and the Lightning Mk I initial testing was a major disappointment (not unlike the Airacobra, which Britain bought more or less sight unseen). As I recall, Lockheed overpromised their production capabilities and then with the US entering the war, things got even more complicated...

 

Lockheed's management and the Army Air Corps' heavy-handed approach with them in the first 18 months of the (US's) war pretty much made a dog's dinner of their production and development over that period, limiting the numbers and improvements of the P-38 at a critical time. The P-322 was very much an unloved stepchild that nobody knew what to do with it, and by all accounts was not well liked by pilots or mechanics.

 

It was an eminently forgettable airplane, so I forgot it.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[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

How do you know all this? Do you live in an air museum? Not asking what you do for a living, but the amount of information you're boasting is staggering.

 

I vote YES for a P-38 in DCS. Won't pit well against other aircraft, but I'd buy it anyways. Flying a twin engine fighter will a bit different, and it's another prop l'd add to my collection. However, I personally do not have this plane high on my WISHLIST, and I do not expect it to show in DCS for a long while, if at all.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as I get a good loadout of rcokets, bombs and those nice strafing complex in the nose, I may not care too much it not being top dog for air combat :P.

 

I tend to like US WWII fighters in more of a multirole capacity, they're almost better attackers than most nations' dedicated attack aircraft :). P-38 with a dive brake, and not having to fight torque like single engine aircraft, might just be a great attacker to try out in DCS.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious that the P-322 was a forgettable aircraft. The same way the Allison P-51 was a forgettable aircraft as well.

 

If DCS ever releases a P-38, it will certainly not be the P-322, but most likely be the P-38L with hydraulically boosted ailerons and supercharger. So I don't think it is fair to judge a plane by its worse version.

 

The P-38 would certainly have a special place in DCS.

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt know the L had the hydraulic actuator for the aileron... Thats awesome, I want the P-38 even more then.

 

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced hydraulically-boosted ailerons, one of the first times such a system was fitted to a fighter. This significantly improved the Lightning's rate of roll and reduced control forces for the pilot. This production block and the following P-38L model are considered the definitive Lightnings, and Lockheed ramped up production, working with subcontractors across the country to produce hundreds of Lightnings each month. [The Aviation History]

 

The P-38J-25-LO production block also introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter. [http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p38_13.html]

 

Yup, I would buy the module in a heartbeat. I cannot attest for these accounts (especially the *highest roll-rates of any fighter*), but she seemed to be a nice lady nonetheless, fork-tailed and all :)


Edited by SeaW0lf

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know all this? Do you live in an air museum? Not asking what you do for a living, but the amount of information you're boasting is staggering.

 

I vote YES for a P-38 in DCS. Won't pit well against other aircraft, but I'd buy it anyways. Flying a twin engine fighter will a bit different, and it's another prop l'd add to my collection. However, I personally do not have this plane high on my WISHLIST, and I do not expect it to show in DCS for a long while, if at all.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

First; I'm kind of old. Second, I've been a huge --I don't think fan is quite the right word, but I've been fascinated with WWII aviation since I was about seven, when my US Air Force dad was transferred to Anglia Control, a radar station sited just outside the gates of RAF Wattisham in East Anglia. They'd just finished the twentieth anniversary celebration of the Battle of Britain and there was an absolute wealth of material for a lad who'd just learned to read.

 

From that, it sort of snowballed. Models, just as Monogram started releasing more realistic scale replicas instead of toys (including the 1/48 scale P-38L/M of song and legend), and then I found 1000 Destroyed: The Life and Times of the Fourth Fighter Group in my high school library. At this point, it became an addiction, and if I could've passed a flight physical when I was 17, I would have gone to Colorado Springs and gotten my wings and maybe eventually driven Eagles or Falcons (or a smoking hole in the ground somewhere).

 

So now, at 63 I have an extensive collection of books & aviation paraphernalia, including some very authoritative volumes on the Lightning and other WWII fighters, all of which have been read & re-read over the years. I just finished re-reading America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean, which is an exhaustive survey of the major US fighter types of the war and a priceless resource when comparing them to each other (including the P-38 series). So, much of my data was refreshed just as this thread started.

 

If DCS does produce a P-38L, it might be much more competitive than you think; the L model fixed most of the flaws in the earlier models and given that much of the festivities online take place below 25K feet, the Lightning in the hands of a dedicated pilot should shine. It has easily the best climb and acceleration of all US fighters, no, repeat, NO torque (ergo a very forgiving stall), unGodly firepower in the nose, and a sustained turn that shocked both the Germans and the less skilled Japanese pilots who didn't take their aircraft to the ragged edge. No performance loss from sea level to 30,000 ft due to the turbosupercharger, and with the boosted ailerons, reasonably good roll at higher speeds.

 

A simulator pilot won't have to contend with the uncomfortable cockpit or poor ergonomics, so all he has to do is figure out what he can do with the Lightning that the opposition can't or shouldn't do.

 

Plus it has that awesome 1930s sci-fi look.

 

cheers

 

horseback

  • Like 1

[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

It is obvious that the P-322 was a forgettable aircraft. The same way the Allison P-51 was a forgettable aircraft as well.

 

If DCS ever releases a P-38, it will certainly not be the P-322, but most likely be the P-38L with hydraulically boosted ailerons and supercharger. So I don't think it is fair to judge a plane by its worse version.

 

The P-38 would certainly have a special place in DCS.

 

I would disagree with you here; the P-322 was a piece of crap, an evolutionary dead end (and thoroughly unnecessary). The Allison Mustang is only forgettable in the sense that it was discontinued so that North American could concentrate on building the Packard Merlin versions--had the Mustang not gotten the Merlin, the Allison Mustangs would have entirely replaced the P-40 everywhere by the beginning of 1944, and the Warhawk would have been 'forgettable'.

 

By all accounts, the Allison Mustang was a joy to fly and had spectacular performance up to about 15,000 ft. It was considered more tractable than the Merlin Mustang not least because the P-51B/C/D/K were basically using an airframe better suited to the lesser power and torque of the Allison (the late D fin fillet was applied to a lot of B & C models--can you guess why?). The Merlin Mustang was not unlike the Spit IX using Mk V frames with the plumbing and prop necessary to attach a 60-series Merlin, but slightly less successful.

 

The Mustang design didn't fully catch up with its engine power from the Allison powered 'A' model until the 'H' model juuust after the war ended. If the British Aircraft Purchasing Commission had asked Dutch Kindelberger to build that fighter with a Merlin from the start (even a 40 series), it would have been vastly more refined and even easier to fly.

 

But I do agree with you about the P-38L.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[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

I would disagree with you here; the P-322 was a piece of crap, an evolutionary dead end (and thoroughly unnecessary). The Allison Mustang is only forgettable in the sense that it was discontinued so that North American could concentrate on building the Packard Merlin versions--had the Mustang not gotten the Merlin, the Allison Mustangs would have entirely replaced the P-40 everywhere by the beginning of 1944, and the Warhawk would have been 'forgettable'.

 

By all accounts, the Allison Mustang was a joy to fly and had spectacular performance up to about 15,000 ft. It was considered more tractable than the Merlin Mustang not least because the P-51B/C/D/K were basically using an airframe better suited to the lesser power and torque of the Allison (the late D fin fillet was applied to a lot of B & C models--can you guess why?). The Merlin Mustang was not unlike the Spit IX using Mk V frames with the plumbing and prop necessary to attach a 60-series Merlin, but slightly less successful.

 

The Mustang design didn't fully catch up with its engine power from the Allison powered 'A' model until the 'H' model juuust after the war ended. If the British Aircraft Purchasing Commission had asked Dutch Kindelberger to build that fighter with a Merlin from the start (even a 40 series), it would have been vastly more refined and even easier to fly.

 

But I do agree with you about the P-38L.

 

cheers

 

horseback

 

I agree, I was generalizing in the sense that both were underperforming and the Allision Mustang would most likely become a footnote in history or a very side show aircraft. Very different from what the P-51 became with a new powerplant.

 

The P-40 I think will always be remembered by the Flying Tigers. If they were replaced by Allison Mustangs, people would still to this day talk about the P-40 and the Flying Tigers much more than what the Allison Mustang was doing in France in 1942.

 

But I am not a WWII aircraft buff, so I am entering a space where I can bite my tong :pilotfly:

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-40 I think will always be remembered by the Flying Tigers. If they were replaced by Allison Mustangs, people would still to this day talk about the P-40 and the Flying Tigers much more than what the Allison Mustang was doing in France in 1942.

 

But I am not a WWII aircraft buff, so I am entering a space where I can bite my tong :pilotfly:

Actually, the P-40Ns of the 23rd FG and the 14th AF in the CBI were replaced by Allison Mustangs in early 1944, by both the A-36 and the P-51A versions. Because they had the same flawed sideways gun installation as the B/C models, they underperformed at first. The Japanese fighters were always extremely elusive targets, and attacks on them usually required a wing-flexing turn or roll, so the guns jammed quite frequently, leading to much cursing and discontent (because the Mustang gave the CBI fighters more opportunity to find the enemy with its greater range, it must have been enormously frustrating to get a good target and not have your guns fire). This changed radically when the fix that the 354th FG in England developed in that spring made its way around the world a just few weeks before the D model arrived in September (I think; might have been a bit later).

 

However, the P-40 was still in wide use throughout the Pacific, and the P-51A, provided in large numbers would have been a huge improvement over the P-40, especially in terms of range. I would expect that with wider use, the guns fix would have been made much sooner and spread faster.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[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

  • 2 weeks later...

 


Edited by mvsgas
  • Like 1

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 55th FG was the first P-38 group operational with the 8th USAAF in October 1943. The 354th FG became operational with the 9th USAAF in December 1943; it was loaned to the 8th for escort duty, mission #196 on 5th December being the first.

Mission #247 on 4th March, 1944 was the first 8th USAAF bombing raid on Berlin. P-51's participated on that raid.

 

I think it's safe to say that P-38's didn't hurt the Luftwaffe seriously over it's own territory prior to the advent of the P-51.

 

 

What I remember reading from various sources (like Horseback, I favored strong books like Bodie's and, of course, America's Hundred Thousand—though the latter had at least one error, namely continuing the tradition of copying a mistake from the P-38 pilot's handbook) was that there was a substantial period (six months, during 1943? I don't remember) before the P-51 arrived on the scene, where the P-38 was the only Allied fighter with the range to escort the bombers all the way to the target. I'm pretty sure Berlin was getting hit well before 1944. Hell, Berlin got bombed all the way back in the Battle of Britain, didn't it?

 

So, during that period of time, before the P-51, the P-38 was the only fighter in the heart of German territory, where the bulk of their defensive efforts were focused on trying to stop the bombers. I'm not sure where the discrepancy in our information comes from.

 

The land war in the East too?

 

All else remaining the same, losing the war in the West would doubtless have meant also losing the war in the East, as a consequence. Do note that I'm not taking an "America won the war hurr" stance; I believe that the war could not have been won without the P-38 being on the scene when it was, but I'd also say the same of several other fighters (for example, the Spitfire and/or Hurricane during the Battle of Britain). "The war could not have been won without X" isn't the same statement as "X is the sole reason the war was won."

 

Oddly, I wouldn't put the P-51 in that short list. It was a better escort fighter than the P-38, I don't deny it; the P-51 had superior combat range and better high-altitude performance, to say nothing of the logistical advantages. But the P-38 was available for the extreme-range missions long before the P-51 was. For this reason, despite being comparatively unsuitable for the role, the P-38 was the more important of the two aircraft. Better an "okay" escort now than a good escort too late. By the time the P-51s took over, the Luftwaffe had already lost the bulk of its fighting strength & wasn't well able to replace it.

 

So, the P-38 was ultimately the more important of the two fighters. Could have continued to struggle on without the P-51. Couldn't have done without the P-38; there were a few months where the bomber command tried no escorts, and the loss rate on those missions was 80%.

 

the P-38 had severe problems entering a dive until the dive brakes were installed outside the nacelles in the J/L models.

 

Dive flaps, not dive brakes. Primary function was to increase lift, not to decrease speed. The P-38's main problem during dives from high altitude was loss of lift, hence the dive flaps. They weren't a cure-all, though. The critical Mach improved but was still lower than any other high-speed fighter, and they weren't guaranteed to deploy when you needed them, either.

 

As you've read the same books as I have, I'm sure you already know this; just pointing it out because it needs to be said. I just read a classic ignorant Youtube comment (from the video most recently posted in this thread) claiming that the "dive brakes" only served to keep the P-38 from reaching the speeds at which it suffered the problem, which is entirely inaccurate. I don't think there's a single fighter with more misinformation floating around it than the P-38.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I remember reading from various sources (and, like Horseback, I favored strong books like Bodie's and America's Hundred Thousand) was that there was a substantial period (six months, during 1943? I don't remember) before the P-51 arrived on the scene, where the P-38 was the only Allied fighter with the range to escort the bombers all the way to the target. Pretty sure Berlin was getting hit well before 1944. Hell, Berlin got bombed all the way back in the Battle of Britain, didn't it?

 

So, during that period, the P-38 was pretty much the only fighter fighting at the heart of German territory, where the bulk of their defensive efforts where focused. I'm not sure where the discrepancy in our information comes from.

 

 

 

All else remaining the same, losing the war in the West would doubtless have meant also losing the war in the East, as a consequence. Do note that I'm not taking an "America won the war hurr" stance; I believe that the war could not have been won without the P-38 being on the scene when it was, but I'd also say the same of several other fighters (for example, the Spitfire and/or Hurricane during the Battle of Britain). "The war could not have been won without X" isn't the same statement as "X is the sole reason the war was won."

 

Oddly, I wouldn't put the P-51 in that short list. It was a better escort fighter than the P-38, I don't deny it; the P-51 had superior combat range and better high-altitude performance, to say nothing of the logistical advantages. But the P-38 was available for the extreme-range missions long before the P-51 was. For this reason, despite being comparatively unsuitable for the role, the P-38 was the more important of the two aircraft. Better an "okay" escort now than a good escort too late. By the time the P-51s took over, the Luftwaffe had already lost the bulk of its fighting strength & wasn't well able to replace it.

 

So, the P-38 was ultimately the more important of the two fighters. Could have continued to struggle on without the P-51. Couldn't have done without the P-38; there were a few months where the bomber command tried no escorts, and the loss rate on those missions was 80%.

Echo, I have to disagree with you on many counts; it appears that you have some serious misconceptions about the timing and numbers as regards the P-38 in the 8th and 9th Air Forces.

 

As noted above, the first ETO based P-38 group arrived in October 1943; that would have been about 50 aircraft and pilots who would have to go through a lot of familiarization and theater protocol training before they could begin combat missions. Late fall and winter of 1943/44 was marked by some pretty filthy weather, severely limiting flight operations over Britain and Europe for the 8th AF. The 20th FG got there just a few weeks ahead of the first Mustang group and in real terms, entered combat operations at nearly the same time because of the weather limitations.

 

P-38s were available in dribs and drabs until almost the middle of 1944 because they were in high demand in the Pacific (where they were very successful) and North Africa where they weren't embarrassing themselves once the higher ups started using them properly, so the 20th was all alone in England with little company for a while, and given their high abort rates, rarely if ever put the whole group into the air at the same time over occupied Europe. They certainly didn't get very far east of the P-47's maximum range during that time. The P-38 was never available in the numbers needed before the Mustang and the improved range versions of the P-47 had already taken the field and dominated it. Both of these aircraft were much more easily produced in large numbers and their pilots took less time to master their potentials.

 

Berlin was not hit by the 8th AF's bombers until the first week of March, 1944, and both Mustangs and Lightning formed the escort over Germany, with the veteran 4th FG taking the lead.

 

The Lightning simply wasn't active in useful numbers before the Mustang groups arrived, and the Mustang groups were ready for combat more quickly once they did arrive. Initially, the P-51B/C had similar abort rates as the Lightning, but the Mustang groups solved their problems and became steadily more combat effective, while the Lightning groups continued to have problems.

 

The Lightning over Europe had some severe issues with maintenance, pilot training and leadership. The last issue is key, because an effective leader in the mold of Hubert Zemke or Don Blakeslee would have kicked the necessary rear ends to get the maintenance issues straightened out and gotten their troops ready for combat. From my reading on the 20th FG, it seems as though their Commanding Officers lasted about two or three weeks before getting killed either in combat or in an accident. No continuity at the top meant that the mechanical issues were not addressed with any seriousness for far too long, and the poorly prepared pilots continued to fumble around.

 

Another issue is that the Lightning groups were stationed way out in the northwestern corner of East Anglia (was it Nuthampstead?), well away from most of the other 8th AF fighter groups; they were isolated from the people who were best equipped to give them some tips and encouragement over a few beers in the Officers' Club and challenge them to do better. This sounds trite, but like it says in the Book of Proverbs "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Those young men needed outside competition and fellowship and instead were orphans in the ass-end of nowhere. It appears to have been one long self pity party for many of them.

 

Ultimately, the P-38 was blamed by the Powers That Be in the 8th AF, and the Lightning groups got Mustangs instead by September of 1944 (and they prospered). It seems unfair in retrospect because the L version was arriving and it was all that the airplane should have been a year earlier.

 

Sadly, I would say that the P-38 recon versions probably had more effect on the European war than the fighter versions. Poor availability, both in terms of new aircraft and the ability to get the ones on the field into the air, plus leadership problems, plus the isolation factor, severely limited the P-38's performance as an escort fighter over Europe. It should have been much more successful, sooner than the Mustang or Thunderbolt, but it wasn't.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[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

Echo, I have to disagree with you on many counts; it appears that you have some serious misconceptions about the timing and numbers as regards the P-38 in the 8th and 9th Air Forces.

 

As you are evidently very well-informed (everything else you've written agrees with what I remember), and as it's been more than ten years since I looked at the P-38 in any significant depth, I'll take your word for it and concede the point. I don't remember where I read that stuff about P-38 escort preceding P-51 escort; you imply that it isn't in the two books which you & I both own, so I can only conclude that it may have been from a slanted source (some of the overly-zealous quotations attributed to Captain Arthur Heiden come to mind).

 

Another issue is that the Lightning groups were stationed way out in the northwestern corner of East Anglia (was it Nuthampstead?)

 

Yes, I distinctly remember Nuthampstead from the P-38 episode of Roaring Glory Warbirds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this may seem like an "out of the blue" question, but would ED listen to a poll? If there is a poll for a P-38 in DCS, would they listen?

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if polls did work, we'd be drowning in airplanes.

 

but they don't. polls do not contribute tangible work in any way, shape, or form; they do not provide research, they do not write code, they do not debug, they do not render art assets, they do not magically free up personnel engaged in other projects, they do not find qualified people with the requisite skillset and teamwork, and they do not provide salaries to hire them.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that if the P-38 were ever released as a module, I would most likely fly it exclusively. It was hands down my favorite WWII era plane. I don't care how it stacked against the axis planes. The P-47 wasn't anything to write home about in that department either. And yes I am aware that more axis planes were taken out by P-47's than any other allied plane in the war but there were obvious reasons for this. And the P-40 is sure to take a terrible licking from the axis planes when it's released. The p-38's abilities arent what made it so appealing to me. The P-38 was just a cool plane all around. I'll bet that it would be an insane ground pounder in DCS.

 

I am nearing the end of my tinier with DCS because the demand on my machine has pretty much caught up and overtaken it's abilities. As it is, I have to fly with everything almost a minimum settings and I still don't get great frame rates. I don't plan on updating my rig until it dies or gets too outdated. My computer is designed for my work more than for gaming, and since gaming costs me money and work makes me money, it makes no sense to invest until I need to. That's not any time in the near future.

But if the P-38 were released as a module through a dependable Dev, I would seriously consider upgrading my system. Alas.....that does not seem to be in the cards any time soon.

 

I should add that the Vaught F4U would probably also prompt me to consider upgrading, and would most likely be an exclusive plane for me. I have cut myself off from purchasing any new DCS stuff due to the technology barrier. I see nothing coming out that would make me want to change that status. It's nothing personal, it's just a practical decision.


Edited by Zimmerdylan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that video from the 30th tells a bit of a different story.

 

They are based in Belgium and take on various missions, they share the base with a P-61 group.

 

It truly was a multi-role fighter, it did recon, CAP, CAS, escort and, with a modified version as the bomb aimer, bomber with a load almost equal to a B-17, just delivered a little quicker.

Fate is inexorable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if polls did work, we'd be drowning in airplanes.

 

but they don't. polls do not contribute tangible work in any way, shape, or form; they do not provide research, they do not write code, they do not debug, they do not render art assets, they do not magically free up personnel engaged in other projects, they do not find qualified people with the requisite skillset and teamwork, and they do not provide salaries to hire them.

Okay...you should look the definition of a poll up some time.

In no way did I say that a poll was an employee of ED.

I meant, would ED listen to polls if DCS may have a P-38 in the future? Not "Should we have this part?" or "Should we have this specific modification?" or "What skins should we have?". By extent, I'm asking if ED would take aircraft requests (ones that they can do) or if ED purely chooses their own aircraft. And I mean just aircraft requests for this question. Now that you should understand, would polls for that at least get noticed? This is their forum, after all.

Please, calm down.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


Edited by Magic Zach

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Okay, so I didn't have any intention of reviving this discussion, but I just now stumbled across something relevant to it while looking at something unrelated.

 

This random web page here asserts the same thing I was saying about the P-38's strategic vitality & being on the job before the P-51, etc. He lists sources at the end of his essay. I haven't checked them out (I do own Bodie's book, somewhere, but it's been many years since I've been in the business of researching aircraft and I'm not starting again now), but maybe someone here might be interested in seeing where this disagreement stems from.

 

In particular, the last portion of the essay, labelled "The Strategic Perspective": http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId668981

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I didn't have any intention of reviving this discussion, but I just now stumbled across something relevant to it while looking at something unrelated.

 

This random web page here asserts the same thing I was saying about the P-38's strategic vitality & being on the job before the P-51, etc. He lists sources at the end of his essay. I haven't checked them out (I do own Bodie's book, somewhere, but it's been many years since I've been in the business of researching aircraft and I'm not starting again now), but maybe someone here might be interested in seeing where this disagreement stems from.

 

In particular, the last portion of the essay, labelled "The Strategic Perspective": http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId668981

 

Good to know, thanks :thumbup:

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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