# Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning



## pampa14 (Mar 7, 2014)

The XP-58 was the largest version of the series of aircraft based on the P-38. The "Chain Lightning" was initially designed as a long-range bomber escort, but was redesigned as a low-altitude ground attack aircraft and finally retro-designed back to a bomber escort/attack aircraft. Engine and supercharger problems caused the project to be canceled after one aircraft was built. A compilation of photos of the prototype, can be found in the link:

Aviação em Floripa: Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning


Hope you enjoy and thanks for visiting!


----------



## Wurger (Mar 7, 2014)

THX for posting.


----------



## GingahNinja (Mar 10, 2014)

This is a predecessor to the P-61 correct?


----------



## Wurger (Mar 10, 2014)

Nope. It is a development of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning as a long-range fighter.


----------



## GingahNinja (Mar 13, 2014)

I figured it was a Lightning variant due to its design and obviously the name but it looks very similar to the P-61. Interesting


----------



## johnbr (Sep 6, 2017)




----------



## Wurger (Sep 6, 2017)




----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 7, 2017)




----------



## Gnomey (Sep 23, 2017)

Nice shots!


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 24, 2017)

Nice.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 24, 2018)

Saw this photo recently. Simply massive or is it the camera angle? Allison V-3420...


----------



## Wildr1 (Feb 25, 2018)

Graeme said:


> Saw this photo recently. Simply massive or is it the camera angle? Allison V-3420...
> 
> View attachment 483700


----------



## Wildr1 (Feb 25, 2018)

Some from my files.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Feb 28, 2018)

No, the P-58 was NOT a development of the P-38. 

The P-58 was for a request for what was referred to as a "Destroyer" aircraft, a two-engine, heavily-armed aircraft designed to be a Bomber Destroyer. It went through a number of considered iterations, including as a heavy escort for bombers and also as a possible attack aircraft.

My thought is that it followed a design concept that happened to be in favor at Lockheed at the time - that of the twin-boom aircraft. Many manufacturers go through "spurts" where their aircraft designs all seem to follow the same basic philosophy and kinda look related. One company that really DID try to base everything on one design was Curtiss, who kept pitching "new" fighter aircraft that basically dated back to the original P-36 design. Yes, there were other designs submitted, like the P-62, etc, but if you look at all the "variations on the theme of P-36 or P-40" you can one of the major items that killed Curtiss as a provider of aircraft.

AlanG


----------



## Graeme (Mar 5, 2018)

Hi Alan.

From Wiki...

_*"The XP-58 was a Lockheed Aircraft Company funded initiative to develop an improved Lightning..."
*_
Micheal O'Leary in an old Air Classics magazine makes a point that the Army gave Lockheed "permission" to build Lightnings for the British *provided *they build an improved Lightning *at no cost to the Army*.
The deal with Britain went pear-shaped - so I guess in the end Lockheed regretted the time, money and effort they had to put into the XP-58?


----------



## johnbr (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## Wurger (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## Wurger (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 31, 2018)

johnbr said:


> View attachment 523660


Boy, that nose gear has "Connie" written all over it. (I know appearances only.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> Boy, that nose gear has "Connie" written all over it. (I know appearances only.)



Actually there's a possibility that there were common components.

Lockheed subcontracted some design and production to Menasco Mfg. which was also located in Burbank CA. The partnership between these two companies lasted into the 1990s and as far as I know still exists today. Manasco helped design and manufacture landing gear for almost every Lockheed aircraft produced from the late 1930s.

While employed at Lockheed I knew someone who worked on the XP-58. In his words "it was a maintenance nightmare."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Dec 31, 2018)

Anybody have pictures of the rear gunners area?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 1, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 2, 2019)

No pictures yet............

​


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 3, 2019)

Saw a scrap book for sale once that had a hand drawn sketch of the inside, looking to the rear, but it had sold already and my prompting of the auctioneer to put me in contact with the buyer came to naught. Would have liked to have know whose it was.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2019)

Capt. Vick said:


> Anybody have pictures of the rear gunners area?


I've never seen any clean rear or interior shots of the XP-58, to be honest.

This short film is about as good as it gets, I think

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 4, 2019)

Oh I have some. Got them from Edwards AFB. Just none of the back gunners compartment. There was a second ad-hoc seat behind the pilot, for a total of at least 3 in the testing configuration. Also there was some kind of skull painted on the tip of the nose at one time.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 7, 2019)

The XP-58 Chain Lightning, intended as an advanced two-place version of the Lockheed P-38 (the tail of a P-38J can be seen at left), went through a prolonged development effort marked by multiple engine, armament, and mission changes brought on both by circumstances and Army Air Forces requirements changes. The end result was a heavy aircraft with somewhat less-than-expected performance. Only one prototype was built. First flight came at Burbank, California, on 6 June 1944, the same day as the D-Day invasion of France. The Chain Lightning was flown about twenty-five times before it was flown to Wright Field, near Dayton, Ohio, for service evaluation. The XP-58 was never flown again and ended its brief career as a ground trainer.
Spotlighted Photos | Code One Magazine Original design book for Lockheed P-38 and XP-58 “Chain Lightning” aircrafts - Price Estimate: $1500 - $2500


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 8, 2019)

That's the one!


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 8, 2019)

Its just looks massive because it is. Ironically, the V-3420 probably was the very best of all the "double" engines developed, but saw the least use. Applications included the XP-58, XB-39, and XB-42.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> ...Applications included the XP-58, XB-39, and XB-42.


Also used on the XB-19.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Also used on the XB-19.


Did it have the same problems as its german counterpart?


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 8, 2019)

The V-3420 seemed to be much more reliable than did the German or British "Twinned" engines, although it probably saw less a lot flight time than the others, which were operational. It was also used on the XP-75.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 8, 2019)

Snautzer01 said:


> Did it have the same problems as its german counterpart?



Most of the articles I've read have stated that it was pretty trouble-free, although there were some problems with mixture distribution (Allison V-3420 24-Cylinder Aircraft Engine). One engine was used on an unlimited hydroplane (Scooter Too – Henry J. Kaiser’s monster speedboat) and another in a pulling tractor (https://thekneeslider.com/images/2012/05/ej-potter-double-ugly.jpg)

The V-3420 seems to have been less problematic (although likely significantly more expensive) than the R-3350.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 8, 2019)

Good stuff!


----------



## wuzak (Jul 8, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Its just looks massive because it is. Ironically, the V-3420 probably was the very best of all the "double" engines developed, but saw the least use. Applications included the XP-58, XB-39, and XB-42.



The XB-42 used two V-1710s, not a single V-3420.

The V-3420 was slightly wider than an R-3350, but a bit over 1/2 the height. It was longer, of course, being an in-line.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 8, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The V-3420 seemed to be much more reliable than did the German or British "Twinned" engines, although it probably saw less a lot flight time than the others, which were operational. It was also used on the XP-75.



Which British "twinned" engines would that be?


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 9, 2019)

Vulture. Aptly named.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Vulture. Aptly named.



The Vulture wasn't a twinned anything.

I suppose you could say the Napier Rapier, Dagger and Sabre were twinned engines, though they were designed as twin crank engines from the outset.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2019)

According to Wiki:



> The Vulture used the unusual "X-24" configuration, whereby four cylinder blocks derived from the Rolls-Royce Peregrine were joined by a common crankshaft supported by a single crankcase.



Except that the bore spacing was around the same as the Merlin's, about 1/2" longer than the Peregrine's, and the Vulture ran about a year before the Peregrine did.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 9, 2019)

Yes, the XB-42 used two V-1710's fed into a V-3420 gearbox. You wonder if the airplane had proceeded if they would have gone to a V-3420, which I suspect would have been lighter. On the other hand I suspect that two V-1710's were more reliable than a V-3420, and an engine out capability probably would have been essential in airline service.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Yes, the XB-42 used two V-1710's fed into a V-3420 gearbox. You wonder if the airplane had proceeded if they would have gone to a V-3420, which I suspect would have been lighter. On the other hand I suspect that two V-1710's were more reliable than a V-3420, and an engine out capability probably would have been essential in airline service.



Yes, it had the remote gearbox used with the V-3420 on the XP-75.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 9, 2019)

Well, the V-3420 clearly was not a twinned V-1710 because it used a different crankcase, supercharger, and reduction drive.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Well, the V-3420 clearly was not a twinned V-1710 because it used a different crankcase, supercharger, and reduction drive.



It depends what you mean by twinned engine.

The Daimler-Benz twinned engines were two complete engines that drove through a common gearbox. Each half could drive the propeller if there was an issue with the other.

The V-3420 was a twinned engine in that it was made from two V-1710s, but geared together so that they could not operate independently and had, as you point out, only one supercharger.

The H-2470 was the same, based on a pair of O-1230s joined together.

They could be considered twinned as they combine two engines into one.

Why I couldn't consider the Vulture a twinned engine is that it had only one crankshaft and shared not much with engines that proceeded it.


----------

