Here's a story that might be interesting to some:

I've been working on a supplement to my WWI flying aces game, In Harm's Way: Aces In Spades which would cover WWII planes. I was happily running along when I hit a snag. The Lockheed P-38 Lightning apparently broke all the rules. There are two basic types of fighters - Zoom & Boom fighters are heavy, powerful planes that can dive and climb very well. They are vertically oriented - their best tactic is to dive onto their prey, shoot, and dive away, then zoom up for another blast. Dogfighters are  light, maneuverable planes that turn hard and fast, flipping around horizontally like bats. Their best tactic is engaging in a turning  battle where they can turn inside their quarry's radius and get behind them for a burst. You can't be both.

Except the P-38. It was fast and heavy, with high wing loading, all characteristic of the Zoom & Boom fighter, but anecdotally, it could turn inside a Japanese Zero, considered one of the best dogfighters ever. It took a lot of research to pull this one out, and my supplement was on hiatus until I could nail it down.

I eventually found out why this was so. The P-38 had two engines, with the pilot in a pod in the center, and two booms out to a wide tail between.  Prop engines in their turning create a huge amount of torque, predisposing the plane to turn one way or the other, depending on the rotation. The pilot deals with this torque by adjusments in the rudder and cother control surfaces to counter the torque. The two big engines on a P-38 would have created a monstrous amount of torque, except that Lockheed designed it to use counter rotating props - the engine on the left rotated towards the right, and the engine on the right rotated to the left. This cancelled the torque entirely, making the big plane as stable as a rock. It also made it hard to turn. How could this thing turn inside a Zero?

The secret lay in the prop controls. The pilot could individually give more power to the left or right engine, as needed. An expert pilot could use this to preferentially increase the torque in the direction he wanted, making the Lightning as nimble as a sparrow or as stable as a rock.  A tyro could not possibly use this bizarre feature properly, so in the hands of the novice, the P-38 was only a Zoom-and-Boom machine.

To model this in Aces, I had to use the Maneuv/Stability mechanic.  Maneuv + Stability must add up to 20. You add the maneuv rating to your Pilot skill TN for any maneuver, and add the stability rating for shooting, landing, and taking off. Thus planes are always a compromise between maneuverable dogfighters and solid Zoom and Boomers.  Making a plane ultra-maneuverable made it a poor gun platform and hard to land and take off, and vice versa.

For the P-38, then, a master pilot - a pilot skill of +5 or better - may change the craft's maneuv/stability rating in between maneuvers arbitrarily in either direction by 1 step per rank of skill. Thus a pilot +6 may move the rating by six steps either way to make the plane either more maneuverable or more stable as required.

Problem solved , progress resumed, things learned. I love this!

-clash

an excellent tale!  i always loved the lightning.  would love to see one IRL.

Quote from: beeberan excellent tale!  i always loved the lightning.  would love to see one IRL.

Glad you enjoyed the process, beeber! I did too!

Aesthetically, it's a gorgeous thing. It's also enormous - that rectangular frame covers a LOT of ground. It is also unmistakable in the air - nothing else looks quite like it.

Another benefit the P-38 had - though unlike the prop differential tuning, it was hardly exclusive* - was the armament was all in the nose. The P-47 and P-51 were wing-armed, which means that the pilot had to pre-set the convergence point for the guns, and only fire when that point was reached. The guns on the P-38 just had to fire straight ahead.

*Some fighters, like the Bell Airacobra and the Me-109, had cannon which fired through the propeller hub. Others had nose-mounted machine-guns firing through the propeller hub with an interrupter gear, though this lowered the ROF substantially. Other planes had mixed armament.

-clash

Interesting design problem, excellent technical explanation, fabulous solution!

Thanks, Jeff!

-clash

I can't wait for the supp, Clash!

Quote from: flyingmiceAnother benefit the P-38 had - though unlike the prop differential tuning, it was hardly exclusive* - was the armament was all in the nose. The P-47 and P-51 were wing-armed, which means that the pilot had to pre-set the convergence point for the guns, and only fire when that point was reached. The guns on the P-38 just had to fire straight ahead.

I recently watched a show on the (wooden) de Havilland Mosquito that had a configuration in many ways similar to the P-38 in this regard.  When they turned it into a fighter, it had a similar gun configuration on the main body between the propellers.  The Mosquito was all about altitude and speed, not maneuvering, though (though it was used on low-altitude [~50 ft] bombing runs).

Quote from: John MorrowI recently watched a show on the (wooden) de Havilland Mosquito that had a configuration in many ways similar to the P-38 in this regard.  When they turned it into a fighter, it had a similar gun configuration on the main body between the propellers.  The Mosquito was all about altitude and speed, not maneuvering, though (though it was used on low-altitude [~50 ft] bombing runs).

The Mosquito was an astonishingly good airplane. The Germans tried throughout the war to imitate it, with limited success.

-clash

Quote from: joewolzI can't wait for the supp, Clash!

Thanks, Joe! It's now back in development!

-clash

Okay, I'm not a super-airplane geek, but I thought I knew my stuff and this came as a fascinating surprise. But excuse me if I also express some skepticism since I've read (and Wikipedia...yeah, know...also says) that the P-38 couldn't out-turn a Zero. What were your sources for the use of differential prop controls to aid maneuverability?

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, I'm not a super-airplane geek, but I thought I knew my stuff and this came as a fascinating surprise. But excuse me if I also express some skepticism since I've read (and Wikipedia...yeah, know...also says) that the P-38 couldn't out-turn a Zero. What were your sources for the use of differential prop controls to aid maneuverability?

It was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

While you're looking...I did find some references to later P-38 models having combat flaps, which supposedly aided maneuverability. As I understand (hopefully) the idea, they were a setting for the flaps that deployed them partway, so they increased lift (presumably at a cost in drag) enough to improve turning performance. This was fairly unique, the only other aircraft to use this feature was the P-51.

Don't forget about that huge control surface in the back! That thing was a real potential burden in Warbirds (and those guys generally did excellent research), if you didn't keep your 6 clear and it got shot up.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhile you're looking...I did find some references to later P-38 models having combat flaps, which supposedly aided maneuverability. As I understand (hopefully) the idea, they were a setting for the flaps that deployed them partway, so they increased lift (presumably at a cost in drag) enough to improve turning performance. This was fairly unique, the only other aircraft to use this feature was the P-51.

The combat flaps, dive brakes, and differential prop control together are what made the P-38 able to turn and roll so well, not any one thing. Big control surfaces. The ailerons were insufficient alone to snap the plane into a roll quickly. Unaided, the plane rolled quickly enough once it got started, but the inertia of the off-centerline engine caused the plane to 'hesitate' in a roll, moving slowly at first. Veteran pilots knew to use the differential controls and combat flaps as well in a roll to snap it around.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

OK - I found those quotes in a book I got from the library. They were what started me on this quest. Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced (read lost in the mass of papers which cover my writing desk) the name and ISBN of the book, which I jotted down for the bibliography. I have found numerous references on the 'net to this practice, but none attributing a source document, like this one:

"Ira Bong was said to be able to turn inside the infamous Japanese Zero by cutting power on the inside engine and letting the drag from the prop pull the plane around tighter than normal."

Arrrrgh! It was Richard Bong!

I did find this remark in "Fire in the Sky," by Eric Bergerud concerning the p-38F:

"Yet at high speeds, like other US fighters, the P-38 could turn inside a Zero, particularly at high altitudes."

Capt. John Tilley says:

"My first kill was a Betty bomber on my 3rd mission while in a P-38H model. The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield. "Pete" Madison[9] was kind enough to oblige. When we got back to base, I had to crank down the side window and wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land the bird."

It could also turn inside the Me/Bf-109 and the FW-190:

""...[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first five to ten degrees of bank." -- Franz Steigler, JG 27, 28 victories."

I should note that this was before dive brakes were installed in the p-38J. Before then, the P-38 could out dive the German fighters, but the pilots rightly refused to because of compressibility problems if they weren't careful.

Lt Col Mark Hubbard CO 20 FG said "The P38 will out turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 20k .....when the enemy attacks we out turn him.."

"Anyone flying a P38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 a decent altitude for a P38 " - Captain Maurice McLary 55Fs/20 FG

"We can definitely turn inside any German aircraft... Due to the beautiful stall characteristics of the P38.... If jumped on the deck, the best evasive manouvre is a tight level turn. you can turn much tighter without the danger of spinning in.........." Major Herbert Johnson CO 77FS 20 FG

"Despite these revolting developments (problems with the p-38F,) the pilots of the 8th knew that the P-38 could outturn, outclimb, outrun and outfight anybody's airplane in the air so they set about rectifying their problems. Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L. Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane." 20th FG Capt. Arthur Heiden

With the flaps introduced on the F model, and the dive brakes and power assisted ailerons introduced in the mid-J models, it had become amazingly maneuverable.

-clash

-clash