• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

P-38 flight file follies - opinions and input sought

Good discussions guys.

The P-38F and P38G had 300 gallons usable (total 306 gallons) in wing tanks while the P-38J and P-38L models had 410 gallons as the Bookie is describing. Drop tanks normally available to commanders in the field were 165 gallons (most commonly used) and 300 gallons (for VLR and ferry flights) not commonly used.

Range is often used interchangeably to describe combat range, i.e. a radius out and back, or total distance possible in a straight line. Not the same things at all obviously, and unfortunately because different sources use the term without defining which of the two meanings they were using, it causes great confusion.

Range numbers quoted on internet sources vary so using official AAF books is helpful, but not the absolute reality. Lockheed and their test pilots argued with the Air Force that their operating instructions were too conservative to get the best performance from the P-38 and Lindbergh proved he could double the endurance and range of the airplane over what the official operating instruction provided.

And that in reality is totally variable depending on altitude flown, speed flown, winds aloft, throttle settings, prop settings, mixture lean setting, aircraft loaded weight, fuel grade, condition of the airframe itself i.e. clean or how dirty, even whether the airframe was painted or left in aluminum.

However, CFS2 is a relatively simplified world and therefore we use a absolute numbers to model flight with.

So let's look at the official Operating Manual and the P-38 Tactical Chart. BTW that Tactical Chart is a late war official document as it incorporates operational lessons learned over the previous 2 years regarding RPM and mixture settings.

The Tactical chart shows the P-38 F&G (i.e. the 300 gal numbers) had a "Maximum Cruise" at 25,000 feet range/endurance of 600 miles and 2.2 hours. The Pilot's Operating Manual says maximum cruise with autolean mixture is 63 gals per hour per engine = 126 gals per hour. Maximum cruise was between 250 and 300 mph. So do the numbers correlate. 300 gallons/126 gph = 2.38 hours. If we use 275 miles per hour as an average we get 2.38 hours X 275 mph and we get 654 miles. That is close when none of the other variables above are not in the mix.

The Tactical Chart also says the P-38F P-38G had a "Long Range" at 10,000 feet range/endurance of 800 miles and 4.5 hours. The Pilot's Manual shows autolean could be adjusted down to a minimum of 31 gals per hour per engine = 62 gals per hour when setting the engines at 1600 RPM and 27 manifold pressure. So 300 gallons/62 gph = 4.83 hours. Again close. What speeds then are we talking about if we are getting to 800 miles? at 4.5 hours it is 177 mph and at 4.83 hours it is 165 mph. These figures match what Lindbergh was teaching to the P-38 Groups in the Pacific which eventually got back to officialdom and incorporated in the P-38 manuals and performance tables.

The P-38 J and P-38L numbers (i.e. the 424 gal numbers) check out in the same way.

So my clean configuration targets are between 600 to 800 miles distance for the P-38F and P-38G, and 840 to 1175 miles distance for the P-38J and P-38L at 10,000 feet.

For me, CFS2 air files are difficult to model because the game algorithms don't seem to accurately calculate the flight file values. Especially the fuel burn per hour calculations. That value in the flight files is nowhere near the rate used in the game, no matter what throttle, mixture and manifold pressures are used. Invariably a change to one value in the air file makes unwanted corresponding changes to other performance numbers. Or perhaps it's just me and my limited understanding of various aerodynamic values. Carefully inputting all of the real world values that can be identified from all available sources into the air file produces a plane's performance in the game that does not come close to the real aircraft's reported performance. Usually much too low. Very frustrating. I am left with jiggering values until I get the performance in the game that the real plane was supposed to have.

But so far, I have the P-38F and P-38G reaching 703 miles at 10,000 feet and keeping the reported top speed at 20,000 feet and at sea level. The P-38J and P-38L are being difficult. They are reaching 833 miles at 10,000 feet and keeping the reported top speed at 25,000 feet. However the sea level speed is about 20 mph too high. I'm still working on it but I am about ready to sacrifice the sea level speed and call it good enough for government work so I can move on with building the campaign. I still have about 20 missions to go to complete it.

Thanks for everyone's input.
 
Hi UncleTgt

I thought I'd test out your thought about the stock P-38F and the Zero.

The stock P-38 has a range of only 330 miles and a top speed 15 mph too slow, so nothing to gain there. Adjusting the speed through a decrease in drag gained 63 miles in range which is right about where I started out with the air file I am using.

I replaced the P-38 prop with the Zero prop values and only gained 11 miles in range. It also increased the mph speed but only by 4 mph.

It was a possibility but only a small gain there unfortunately. :apologetic:

Thanks for the ideas, it's interesting to explore them.

ALL original CFS2 airfiles have incorrect drag values. Reducing drag values, I succeed to get more range and speed to F4F, F6F and other planes They behave as the real thing. I intended to upload them but my computer crashed. I became so depressed that I decide to give me a little time of CFS2...

Maybe I'll redo them.

Pepe
 
I did a test flight with the P-38G,taking off from Henderson.Round trip was 945 miles.

300 gallons of fuel,climbed 10,000ft and speed was 189 mph (165 kts ).When back at Henderson still had 11% of fuel.

The airfile and cfg were edited by Pen32Win and Talon.

TheBookie
 
Hi TheBookie

I have those air files too. I am getting some of the numbers I want with the G now. I tested both with the same test mission set ups to see how they compared to see if I have been wasting my time. The distance test is set up for when the planes run completely out of fuel.

With Pen32Win/Talons P-38G w/300 gallons the numbers:

Distance at 275mph cruise is 569 miles.
Distance at 165 mph cruise is 1187 miles
Top speed at 25000 feet is 414 mph (19 mph too high)
Top speed at S/L is 359 mph (19 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 30 seconds

With the P-38G files I have been working on w/300 gallons numbers:

Distance at 275mph cruise is 574 miles.
Distance at 165 mph cruise is 1109 miles
Top speed at 25000 feet is 398 mph (3 mph too high)
Top speed at S/L is 360 mph (20 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 19 seconds

I'm still short distance on max cruise 275 mph (mean of high and low mph stated in Manual) and too high on top speed at 25,000
I know to get to the aircraft performance I will have to cheat a little bit. CFS2's game algorithms aren't all that precise and I am trying to get good performance numbers versus exact physical specifications. So by adding 24 gallons of fuel and adjusting the drag to get correct stop speed at 25,000 feet I get these performance numbers.

Distance at 275mph cruise is 600 miles. (exact)
Distance at 165 mph cruise is 1253 miles
Top speed at 25000 feet is 395 mph (exact)
Top speed at S/L is 359 mph (19 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 19 seconds

I am at a loss to adjust the 165 mph cruise and the sea level speeds. When I do that, the 275 mph cruise distance and the top speed at 15000 feet decrease significantly. So I am going with the lesser of two evils and keep the 275 mph cruise and 25000 feet numbers.

BTW here is where the stock DCC P-38G numbers are at.

Distance at 275mph cruise is 560 miles.
Distance at 165 mph cruise is 1077 miles
Top speed at 25000 feet is 405 mph (10 mph too high)
Top speed at S/L is 356 mph (196 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 35 seconds
 
Hello Captain Kurt,

There are quite a few things that can be done to tune the cruise performance of your aircraft.
I work with CFS1, but the principles should be the same.
Keep in mind that a drastic change such as reducing the Coefficient of Drag of your airframe MAY allow you to hit one particular target performance parameter, but it usually screws up some thing else if the AIR file was well tuned to begin with.

First of all, are you actually using the recommended RPM and Manifold Pressure settings for cruise according to the Pilot's Manual?
Is the Engine Power output approximately where the manual would suggest it should be?
The chances are that it won't be.
I believe that most people, myself included, only bother fine tuning the output at Maximum RPM and Military and Emergency Manifold Pressure settings.
This can be adjusted by using Records 508 and 509 and POSSIBLY Record 507 as well.
I don't know if you configure with Auto-Mixture or how CFS2 handles Auto-Rich and Auto-Lean.
CFS1 basically does not, but I am working on a project to address that issue in a way.

If you haven't already tried it, Jerry Beckwith's Test Panel is a really excellent tool to let you know what the numbers are that you are actually working with.

If you are getting the expected Engine HP output and believe the airframe drag is correct but are still not able to achieve the correct cruising speeds, check also whether you are flying at the correct altitude.
Note that an escort mission in Europe is typically flown at higher altitudes and higher speeds and range tends to be SHORT.
The extreme ranges that were achieved in the Pacific were flown at much lower altitudes, very low RPM, coarse propeller pitch, and wide open throttle with little to no supercharger boost.

If you find that the altitude is correct but speeds are still too slow, then perhaps it MIGHT be worthwhile to do some tuning with the Propeller Tables.
If you intend to go that way, before you start, it is worthwhile to determine what conditions should NOT be affected by your tuning.
Typically this would be
Maximum Speed at Sea Level
Maximum Speed at Altitude
Best Climb Speed.
What you are looking for is Propeller Efficiency and Pitch at a particular range of Advance Ratios.
Typically the Advance Ratio at Cruise is going to be pretty different from Maximum Speed, but it may not be that different from the Best Climb Speed.
If you make any adjustments here, go slow and try to keep the curves as contiguous as possible.
It is worthwhile to build a spreadsheet as I did for my "Flying Swallow" (Kawasaki Ki 61-I Hien) Project to see what might be happening when the simulator interpolates between curves.

Without knowing any more, it is hard to make any very specific suggestions.

By the way, when you doubled the fuel tank capacities in an attempt to increase range, did you also try to reduce the fuel weight per gallon from the standard 6.0 pounds per gallon down to 3 pounds per gallon?

- Ivan.
 
Hi Ivan

You are absolutely correct that adjusting drag coefficients to obtain a top speed at critical altitude will mess with the speed at sea level. So will obtaining the distance desired at maximum cruise settings (in this case the mean of the pilot's manual speeds between 250 mph and 300 mph) mess with the distance obtained at "long range" settings (again a mean between 165 mph and 230 mph). Obtaining the two former will cause too high values on the latter. Obtaining desired numbers for the latter will cause too low top speed and short max cruise distance. I think CFS2 flight algorithms are too generalized or unsophisticated to get everything in sync no matter what adjustments are made. You can have every aircraft parameter correctly entered into the air and cfg files and the result is an aircraft that bears no performance resemblance to the real aircraft. Hence we (me anyway) are stuck with tweaking and compromises.

To answer some of your questions

Yes I have engine power dialed in with RPM / Hg settings and military power overboost Hg.

Bear in mind that in a campaign or mission using the warp function, it does not matter what the player sets the engine and throttle setting at just before he warps. The speed programmed into the waypoint determines how fast the player flies to the next waypoint. And the game determines what the throttle settings would be for waypoint to waypoint based upon the aircraft's flight files. The player's throttle setting only matters if he is flying the whole distance in real time. Auto mixture is turned off in the air file so it the player wants to fly a distance by hand he can adjust the throttle, mixture and RPM to obtain greater distances.

I have played with a large number of prop angles (pitch) and moment of inertia values. Only slight performance differences seem to be obtainable which is just not real world. The best combo I have come up with still requires a compromise of a 10% scalar increase in the cfg file to get documented aircraft performance. Again maybe it is me, but after all the work I have put into it I come back to the conclusion that something in CFS2 flight programming algorithms is too generalized.

I have the performance tweaked to the point where only a negligible amount of added fuel is needed. see below

So here are what my final performance figures for both the G and J model P-38's are:

P-38G
Distance at 275 mph cruise is 600 miles. (exact distance)
Distance at 195 mph cruise is 1179 miles (should be 800 miles)
Top speed at 25000 feet is 395 mph (exact speed military power)
Top speed at S/L is 362 mph (22 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 14 seconds from engine #1 start (original was 35 seconds)
Added 4 gallons of fuel

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-38J


Distance at 275 mph cruise is 840 miles. (exact distance)
Distance at 195 mph cruise is 1630 miles (should be 1175 miles)
Top speed at 25000 feet is 408 mph (exact speed military power)
Top speed at S/L is 362 mph (12 mph too high)
RPM spool up time to 10% both engines is 14 seconds from engine #1 start (original was 35 seconds)
Added 28 gallons of fuel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The small amount of added fuel and its weight have zero effect on performance.

Other performance improvement

- Engine RPM spool up to 10% is now 14 seconds from engine 1 start. (originally 35 seconds)
- Player can take off once engines are equalized at 10% without wing men running over him.
- Wing men can stay in formation at full throttle top speed.
- AI aggression performance much enhanced.
- AI land, taxi off runway and stop.

Unless someone has a solution for the negative cross effect between top speed at high and low altitude and distance performance cruise settings, I am at a loss. I am at the point of accepting the compromise and go with the top speed at critical altitude and maximum cruise distance as these most affect the campaign game play, and live with the too high values at the other end.
 
Hello Captain Kurt,

I would do some local testing but I don't happen to have a current installation of CFS2 at the moment.
I lost two computers to MB failure and HDD failure about a year ago and haven't recovered all the software I used regularly much less the software I DIDN'T use regularly.

What are the RPM, Manifold Pressure, and Altitude for the early (P-38G) and late (P-38J) Lightning to achieve the same cruising speeds? The early Lightning was a lower drag aircraft without the intercoolers under the engines and tended to cruise faster with the same throttle settings. This was one of the problems I had when working with the P-38F and P-38J AIR files. There wasn't a noticeable difference at cruise power with my AIR files.

I should test my own Lightnings at various cruise throttle settings to see what they doing, though I would much rather do that AFTER I have some good numbers from a manual as to what their speeds should be at cruise settings. I had not wanted to do any serious detail testing until after I had built proper Propeller Tables for the P-38 because although the stock tables that I am using now give "reasonable" straight line performance, they have some serious issues in some areas.

If you feel an absolute need to tune the Sea Level Maximum Speed without affecting the Maximum Speed at Altitude, it is possible to do this via the Compressibility Tables. I believe some of the CFS stock aircraft have some non-linearities in those tables at low speeds. This isn't really the right way to do it, but doing it via propeller tables isn't nearly as easy.

Moment of Inertia values in the Propeller Parameters won't do a thing for performance.
Messing with the pitch range if that is what you mean isn't really useful if the propeller tables are anything like what we typically find in CFS1. If you are interested in what I have tried, the "Flying Swallow" thread gives a pretty good description though there is a lot more that has been done since that hasn't been described there.
You probably already know this, but changing the way the simulator selects pitch is a matter of adjusting values in Table 512 (Propeller Power Coefficient). It takes a fair amount of calculation to get this even close to correct.

The problem with mixture in these simulators is that there really isn't a "correct" way to simulate how things were done.
In real life, a pilot would just use Auto-Rich in combat and Auto-Lean for economical cruise. A smart pilot might be able to get a bit better performance by doing some manual tuning, but if we allow that in the AIR file, then we also have to manage the mixture corrections for altitude changes and most countries had carburetors that could handle that situation.
I haven't yet found a way to have both manual mixture and automatic corrections for altitude but I am working on something to address that situation, though I still haven't figured out how I want everything to work yet.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Ivan

Max cruise engine settings are almost identical
275 mph true air speed
25,000 feet altitude
28 Hg for the G, 29 Hg for the J
2950 RPM for the G
3000 RPM for the J

These are with CFS2 cockpit gauges.

I freely admit I'm and idiot and have no idea how to calculate a compressibility or propeller power coefficient. For that matter, I don't know which table(s) relate to compressibility. I have discovered that the MOI of the prop does have noticeable effect on thrust by trying different numbers (basically just hacking at it plugging in numbers from the stockers and other aircraft). Sadly mostly the differences I tried seemed to be degrading performance, not improving it. But again I have no ability to calculate an appropriate value or how to accurately compare differences. I ended up just using the best test result number but as I said it still is falling short of good performance.

BTW do you have a link for the Flying Swallow thread? I'd like to read through it but I'm not finding it via the forum search.
 
Hello Captain Kurt,

I am a bit surprised by the settings you are using for range testing.
Attached is the SEFC for the P-38J.
As you can see, although the "Rated Power" is also a Max Continuous setting, it is not going to work in terms of getting optimum range because it is using Auto-Rich mixture.
It is also at a much lower RPM than what you are using: 2600 RPM.

The actual Maximum Cruise is at 2300 RPM and 35 Inches Hg and Auto-Lean mixture.

The Compressibility Table can be found at Record 430.
The Nose Tuck Table is found at Record 433 and is quite relevant for the P-38.

The "Flying Swallow" thread about Ki 61-Id Hien can be found here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/79935-Flying-Swallow

There is a lot of stray stuff if what you are looking for is propeller tables.
I was also doing a bit of work with propeller tables for the P-40N recently until I got stuck.
I am debating adjusting "reality" a bit for the curves in order to lessen the effects of interpolation.
The problem with a lot of the monologues in the CFS1 forums is that when I make a serious mistake, no one ever calls me on it.
(Actually Smilo has a couple times, but he is very polite about it.)
If you see a thread stop for a long time, I myself may have noticed a serious mistake.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • P-38J_SEFC.jpg
    P-38J_SEFC.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 0
Hi Ivan

You've hit the screw on the head (see below) It's another CFS2 compromise. I'm aware of the CFS2 engine settings vs the real world. However as someone else said recently "It's a combat sim after all". Players will most often simply use throttle to adjust their speed and not go through the additional steps of adjusting RPM and Mixture as well, especially in missions, campaigns and quick combat. CFS2 throttle control by itself uses the max RPM stated in the air file and adjusts the manifold pressure up or down. It doesn't touch the mixture setting. On the keyboard that is by 10% increments unless the plus / minus keys are also used.

It is still possible to use throttle, manifold pressure, and mixture controls if the player is flying the plane "by hand" and not using the warp feature to cover long distances. However, when the warp feature is used, the game evidently uses the speed that is set to go to the next waypoint and the variable Hg/max RPM speed control is the setting it uses to calculate fuel burn. That may be why fuel burn while warping can be so high and reported aircraft range not being met.

What I am trying to accomplish is the closest match to performance in a mission / campaign environment where the warp feature is used consistently. I am attempting to match how the game controls the engine with reported speed and distance performance, so that it works in the CFS2 combat sim environment. At the same time, the plane needs to perform realistically while the player IS flying the airplane "by hand". A nice conundrum.

If this was for a non-combat sim then the scenario would be totally different and the real world engine control settings would be paramount.

So far I have top speed at altitude and reported max cruise distance solved when warp is used, but not at S/L speed or for "long range" distance. Those are overkill, but not especially important in game play so I'll stop fighting those for now. But BTW when I do fly the plane by hand and adjust throttle, manifold pressure, and mixture to the handbook settings, the S/L top speed comes close to matching reported speeds. I haven't taken the hours necessary to test how that affects the max distance possible.

Next I need to adjust control responses closer to reported performance than what I have now. That will involve more compromises. The P-38 was an energy fighter using speed and "boom and zoom" fighting tactics. Of course (sarcasm here) CFS2 game programming only uses turning dogfighting tactics for the AI. It thinks every plane is a Zero. In order for the AI P-38s to not simply get slaughtered it will need some more maneuverability than the real plane had because the AI won't exploit the strengths of the real plane. Another nice conundrum.

I guess you could say I have to use a hammer to drive a screw, but the screw still needs to get installed.:banghead:
 
Hello Captain Kurt,

I do understand where you are coming from. These are all "Combat Flight Simulators".
My own approach is a little different though which is why I am still in CFS1.
I look at this as an experimental lab for flight dynamics testing and even after nearly 20 years, I find that I am still learning new things that can be done with an ancient simulator.
For the most part, there is very little reason that one cannot get VERY close to actual flight performance with the exception of handling multi-speed superchargers and terminal dive performance because of propeller table limits.

I personally have not flown more than about a dozen mission over the years, so I don't really know the differences that are encountered.

As for the P-38 being an energy fighter, it did have the engine power to give advantages there, but it could also be flown as a turn fighter with the exception of a rather mediocre roll response. With the Fowler Flaps out, it could turn pretty well and with differential engine power, it could swap ends much faster than one might expect. Both engines were critical engines on the P-38.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Ivan

From what I read that's true to an extent. Sounds like it also depended on the mark. Earlier models had a larger turn radius and slower roll rate than the later J model and once the boosted ailerons were installed it truly did become a good all round fighter. One trick pilots of the earlier models reportedly used if they got into a turning fight was to drop 10 degrees of flaps. Made them slower but increased the rate of turn.

Contrarily I also read some accounts given by Luftwaffe pilots who had fought the P-38s in Italy, who said their Bf109s were out-turned by the P-38s. Of course they were likely flying R6 trop versions which had a somewhat lower performance than a clean 109. And pilot skill is always a factor. But still, that contradicts what you read elsewhere about the P-38s performance. In the end it's all pretty anecdotal so I guess a guy can pick what he thinks is credible. As we know, even the official test reports don't agree from report to report.

Are we having fun yet? :biggrin-new:
 
Hello Captain Kurt,

From the accounts I was reading recently in "America's Hundred Thousand", by Francis Dean, the low speed roll rate of the P-38 was never particularly good and the lag before the aircraft rolled through the first 10 degrees was particularly disconcerting.
This was from pilot accounts gathered during the fighter conferences I believe in 1943 and 1944.

The Fowler Flaps on the P-38 came pretty much straight out to increase wing area in the first few degrees unlike Gouge Flaps which come down immediately, so there wasn't that much drag for the first few degrees.

As for turn performance, it matters a lot how fast the two fighters are flying at. Then again, the stall speed of a P-38 isn't greatly different from a Spitfire which is amazing considering the size and weight differences.

Glad things are working out.

- Ivan.
 
Back
Top