P-38L Lightning for MSFS - Released 9-30-21

Thank you, Marcel, I appreciate it!

I'm friends with Chris Fahey on Facebook, who flies and works on warbirds for the Planes of Fame Air Museum at Chino, California. He has time in both the Planes of Fame's restored P-38J "23 Skidoo" (with unboosted ailerons) as well as the restored P-38L "Thoughts of Midnite" (with boosted ailerons). He mentioned, after flying the P-38L, that it handles very much like the J except for the ailerons. He stated that the boosted ailerons in the P-38L are OUTSTANDING(!) - both light and responsive. The WWII era test chart for the P-38L states that it will roll 140 degrees per second, and based on his experience, Chris says he believes it! By comparison, the unboosted ailerons of the earlier P-38s had only a lack luster 47 degree per second roll rate. With the P-38L, Lockheed also increased the throw of the ailerons to 30 degrees up and down, where as previous airplanes were 15 degrees up and 30 down.

While the earlier P-38s were one of the poorest rolling fighters, the P-38L is considered in many texts as having had the fastest roll rate of all WWII US fighters. In a USAAF/US Navy fly off at the end of WWII, the P-38L was tied for second with the F4U Corsair for having "the best ailerons", just behind the P-51.

I should clarify my statement a bit better about the yoke as well - with full aileron deflection, the yoke should be turning 90-degrees, so full travel is 180-degrees from left to right stops.
 
Last edited:
Following up from post #97 - just to elaborate a bit more on how far off the engine performance currently is, in order to mimic/recreate the same takeoff distance as seen in the video in post #97, running with full internal fuel, I can still easily takeoff within the same distance using the crazy low power setting of only 30-in MP(!) with the FlyingIron P-38, vs. the 45-in MP takeoff power as seen in the real world video (and they were certainly not using full fuel for that flight either). Again, one of the issues being that the engines are getting to full 3,000 RPM way too early in relation to manifold pressure.
 
Bomber_12th said:
Following up from post #97 - just to elaborate a bit more on how far off the engine performance currently is, ...
Click to expand...

I concur, it comes to full mp almost instantaneously (as do the sounds), and climbs very well at only a modest power setting. My simvar monitoring app shows that the engines are producing near-spec power at the correct settings, so there must be some other things about the engine and flight model that need tweaking.

There are a few other areas of the flight model that need some refining as well. For instance, I've yet to experience compressibility tuck in a high speed dive from high altitude (while not using the dive recovery flaps) -- I lose elevator authority as one should, but the plane comes out of the dive all on its own every time. I recall this was tricky to get right when I was doing my P-38 back in the day. It took me a while to find the right tables and values to get the right effect whilst not messing up normal flight characteristics.

I've been impressed with the developer so far and hope that, with time and constructive feedback from customers, many of these issues will be addressed inasmuch as the base sim permits and so long as it makes business sense for them to do so. I recently sent them a number of photos alongside model images to point out some fairly noticeable discrepancies (in the spirit of constructive feedback to help make their product even better) and they were very gracious in response and said they hoped to address them in future releases.

Meanwhile, despite a few shortcomings, I'm simply having a blast flying this thing. I doubt I'll fly another plane in MSFS for some time. :untroubled:

- dcc
 
jankees said:
a few more paints emerging from my paint shed:jk9083 by JanKees Blom, on Flickr
Click to expand...

fantastic! It's getting hard for me to choose which of your paint schemes to fly, they're all great!

(If you're looking for another one to do and are willing to take requests :untroubled:, I'd love to see Dick Bong's "42" 44-23964 -- the one with 40 kill markings)

- dcc
 
Bought it now, too. Only had one flight so far, but I agree with the comments about power settings and the dive situation. I recently read Kelly Johnsons autobiography and there it was described as pretty much unrecoverable IIRC. That is without use of the dive brakes of course which were added due to this problem.

Optics and performance are great.

Also thanks for all the repaints! I want to take a look at the paint kit as well, but for now I am very happy to see some quality liveries available!
 
One more point I am confused by is the startup. There is a start switch and an engage switch. Manual says to energize and than quickly engage which is also how I know it from other inertia starters.
In the sim there is a Start and an Engage switch. So I'd think start would be energize but pressing start only does nothing. Only pressing engage turns up the starter motor, but also spins the prop (doesn't make sense for an inertia starter). And the engine starts by using the starter switch after the motor is at constant speed.

Maybe I am doing something wrong which is quite possible, or I didn't understand the concept of the P-38s starter system or there may be something off in the simulation.

Start sequence, especially with inertia starters is pretty much the highlight of flying with warbirds for me, so I'd like to figure this out.

The Youtube clips I found mostly show normal inertia starters and some conventional starters (or inertia not used), so I'm not sure whoch behavior is correct for the L variant depicted here.
 
The engine starter/engage switches are indeed wrong, as currently depicted. The position and title of the switches is correct - starter/energize on the left, engage/mesh switch on the right - but their functions are crossed/opposite from what they should be. We should be having to use the left switch (starter) first, followed by the right switch (engage). Also, the way the starter setup is currently depicted is not correct. On the P-38 (and other Allison-engined warbirds), the propellers shouldn't be spinning when holding the starter switch. During this time, only the inertia flywheel should be spinning (sound), while the prop stays stationary. Once the inertia flywheel is fully spun up (based on sound), then you press the engage switch, thus engaging the starter clutch which then gets the prop spinning/engine start in quick succession (during this time you prime the engine as necessary). All of this is confirmed via the original wartime P-38G/J/L flight manual (which I have), as well as historic and modern videos which can be found on Youtube of P-38 starts.

If anyone can relay this information to FlyingIron, I'd appreciate it!
 
Bomber_12th said:
The engine starter/engage switches are indeed wrong, as currently depicted. The position and title of the switches is correct - starter/energize on the left, engage/mesh switch on the right - but their functions are crossed/opposite from what they should be. We should be having to use the left switch (starter) first, followed by the right switch (engage). Also, the way the starter setup is currently depicted is not correct. On the P-38 (and other Allison-engined warbirds), the propellers shouldn't be spinning when holding the starter switch. During this time, only the inertia flywheel should be spinning (sound), while the prop stays stationary. Once the inertia flywheel is fully spun up (based on sound), then you press the engage switch, thus engaging the starter clutch which then gets the prop spinning/engine start in quick succession (during this time you prime the engine as necessary). All of this is confirmed via the original wartime P-38G/J/L flight manual (which I have), as well as historic and modern videos which can be found on Youtube of P-38 starts.

If anyone can relay this information to FlyingIron, I'd appreciate it!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input on this John, that is what I also believed, but I don't have the knowledge level about these aircraft specific details that you and other members here often show.

Let's hope this can be fixed!
 
inspired by jankees, I'm attempting my first repaint in MSFS... it's just an experiment for now (not sure I'll release it) but it's fun to tinker with and try to re-use stuff from my old FS9 models

- dcc
 

Attachments

  • Microsoft Flight Simulator 10_20_2021 5_23_23 PM.png
    Microsoft Flight Simulator 10_20_2021 5_23_23 PM.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 285
dcc said:
inspired by jankees, I'm attempting my first repaint in MSFS... it's just an experiment for now (not sure I'll release it) but it's fun to tinker with and try to re-use stuff from my old FS9 models

- dcc
Click to expand...

That's looking superb!
 
That is looking great, David! I love the yellow/black markings of the "Yellow 42" Bong paint scheme. I've got to spend some time with the P-38 textures one of these days too - so many favorite paint schemes I'd like to see done, including above all "Happy Jack's Go Buggy", "Scat III", "Pudgy V", "Thoughts of Midnite", "Tangerine", and a better "Marge" and "California Cutie".
 
Looking good, David!
I wanted to atart on 42 this weekend but you beat me to it!
OK, maybe I'll try Scat iii then
 
This is almost ready to share with the world, my first MSFS repaint and first P-38 sim texture in about 14 years! I hope to get it up on flightsim.to soon. (thanks to jankees for all the help! not only a great texture artist, but a fine tutor as well :untroubled:)

- dcc
 

Attachments

  • y42almostdone.png
    y42almostdone.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 173
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top