# 1942 and on: RAF fields 'proper' P-38s - consequences?



## tomo pauk (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm sure people in the forum are aware about the unhappy story about P-38s that were to be received by RAF (non-turbo, same rotation 1040 HP V-1710s). Long story short, the plane was under performer for 1942, and only few were produced. 
So what could be the plausible consequences (strategic, tactical, technical), with RAF fielding P-38s like ones USAAF was fielding, from P-38F on, in good numbers, form early 1942 on?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 22, 2012)

The results could have been significant - _*though not game changing*_. P-38's were impressive in the role of both pathfinders and light-fast bombers. P-38's with turbos and 'handed' engines would have provided an option to the Mosquito - with a crew of one. The RAF would have 'wrung out' many of the issues the P-38 had before the USAAF arrived and deployed. In RAF hands the P-38 would have probably operated at low to medium altitudes which in itself would have relieved many of the comfort issues with the plane.

MM

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2012)

I had been told that one of the reasons why the RAF "really" initially purchased these aircraft (with Lend Lease Money) was to bridge a gap in the production line and it was they who came up with the "Lightning" name. The turbo chargers used on the P-38 were actually "furnished" by the US Government as well as some other equipment that would not have been part of the procurement deal. After the initial 3 were delivered, (Model P-332s) the remaining aircraft went to a Dallas mod center and later used as trainers. This story was told to me about 30 years ago by some old timers who were working on the P-38 production line, hard to say if this was a myth or a real undocumented fact.

I don't know if they could really have served a purpose for the RAF except as a trainer or a low altitude recon aircraft. They possibly could have been used over the UK as an interceptor for harrassing bombers, but as stated their performance was dismal. They did not have counter-rotating propellers either.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> The results could have been significant - _*though not game changing*_. P-38's were impressive in the role of both pathfinders and light-fast bombers. P-38's with turbos and 'handed' engines would have provided an option to the Mosquito - with a crew of one.



Do you think that a P-38 pilot may be a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work he has to do by himself? Navigating at night, for example.

Where do you stick Oboe and its electronics? In pathfinder Mosquitos that equipment was in the nose, in the bomb aimer's position. I suppose that could be done for the Lightning, but then you have no guns (so equal to the Mossie in those terms). What about H2S? Can a pilot fly an aircraft with his head buried in a radar scope?

Then there is the matter of target marking. Amongst others the RAF used 500lb and 1000lb Target Indicators - basically the same size as their equivalent MC bombs. On the Lightning these have to be carried externally, which restricts performance and range.

I can't see the Lightning providing a viable alternative to the Mosquito for pathfinding.

It could be used as a night fighter, but not radar equipped. It could be used for short cross channel raids as a light bomber, with Spitfires as escorts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Do you think that a P-38 pilot may be a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work he has to do by himself? Navigating at night, for example.


FYI - unless you're relying on electronic equipment, navigating at night (even during WW2) is no easier (or difficult) in a multi engine aircraft than a single engine aircraft - sometimes it's actually easier.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FYI - unless you're relying on electronic equipment, navigating at night (even during WW2) is no easier (or difficult) in a multi engine aircraft than a single engine aircraft - sometimes it's actually easier.


 
Said nothing about twin engined aircraft vs single engined aircraft. In any case the comparison was between the Lightning and teh Mosquito, which was also a twin - but had two crew.

For the Lightning to be useful as a pathfinder it would need to use electronic equipment in order to accurately find the target and mark it. In WW2 RAF that meant Gee-H, Oboe and H2S, predominately the latter two. Can a single pilot operate that equipment and fly the plane?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Pope (Aug 22, 2012)

"If " the Brits had lots of P-38's, they might have hung Merlins on them!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Said nothing about twin engined aircraft vs single engined aircraft. In any case the comparison was between the Lightning and teh Mosquito, which was also a twin - but had two crew.


Regardless. A crew of two would take some work load off a pilot but regardless of the aircraft, my point, night navigation under VFR conditions is not that difficult. A navigator helps but nothing a pilot flying solo in a twin engine aircraft couldn't do by himself.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2012)

The story about the turbos being government-furnished equipment is true. The British planes would have been OK with handed engines, but they didn't handle very well on same-turning engines.

It took the USAAC about a year to find out the European fuel was a different mix and get the carburetion correct, and it took about 6 - 7 months to figure out the intake manifold issues. Once they did that, the performance of the Allisons was just fine, and the Merlins would not have changed much since the Allisons were right at home at high altitude when equipped with turbochargers and carbureted correctly. Once they were "fixed," most Lightnings were transferred to the PTO rather rapidly since there was simply no point in having both the Lightnuing and the P-51 in the same theater. Why have two sets of mechanics when one set will do?

I believe that if the British had ordered standard Lightnings of the J and H varieties, they would have been quite significant. I have never really thought the F model was combat ready. I can tell you this, changing the engines on Glacier Girl (a P-38F) is a nightmare compared with changing the engines on the Planes of Fame P-38J. You almost have to disassemble the F model to get the engine out. Let's just say it ain't all that easy on the J model, but the F model makes the same work on the J look easy by comparison.

The low critical Mach number was fixable, but maybe not at the time. With what we know NOW, it could have been fixed easy enough but, in WWII, maybe it was just a limitation you'd have to live with for awhile, maybe the whole war. Still, the "fixes," including the dive flaps, WERE a partial solution that made reaching or exceeding the critical Mach nnumber a survivable event.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Regardless. A crew of two would take some work load off a pilot but regardless of the aircraft, my point, night navigation under VFR conditions is not that difficult. A navigator helps but nothing a pilot flying solo in a twin engine aircraft couldn't do by himself.


 
If it wasn't such a problem the RAF wouldn't have needed pathfinders in the first place.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> The story about the turbos being government-furnished equipment is true. The British planes would have been OK with handed engines, but they didn't handle very well on same-turning engines.



The engines were probably GFE too.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 23, 2012)

An Air Force that really would have benifited with the P-38 was the RAAF in the PTO.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Regardless. A crew of two would take some work load off a pilot but regardless of the aircraft, my point, night navigation under VFR conditions is not that difficult. A navigator helps but nothing a pilot flying solo in a twin engine aircraft couldn't do by himself.



Valid point Joe but we're talking about RAF use of the P-38...that means flying over the UK and Europe...at night. VFR not so much, methinks!


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 23, 2012)

People, how come we discuss usage of the day fighter for night duties? Replacement for Mosquito?? C'mon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> If it wasn't such a problem the RAF wouldn't have needed pathfinders in the first place.


The only reason why pathfinders were needed is because the RAF was expected to go out at night in all conditions and find their targets. On a moonlit night you can see terrain and ground features quite well, this is from actual flying experience and I'm sure other civilian and former military pilots on this forum will agree with me. It's when target areas become obscured either by weather or defensive measures where pathfinders become necessary, aside from marking the target.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The engines were probably GFE too.


They were and that's another reason why the "Merlin Myth" was so difficult to really confirm, but that's another story.


Wildcat said:


> An Air Force that really would have benifited with the P-38 was the RAAF in the PTO.


Agree!!!


buffnut453 said:


> Valid point Joe but we're talking about RAF use of the P-38...that means flying over the UK and Europe...at night. VFR not so much, methinks!


You're probably right, especially in the winter months but it was still done by other aircraft.


tomo pauk said:


> People, how come we discuss usage of the day fighter for night duties? Replacement for Mosquito?? C'mon.


The only thing that makes the Mosquito a "night fighter" was it's radar equipment. Aside from things like flame arrestors and minor cockpit mods, true WW2 night fighters were based on the installation of radar. After WW2 when this equipment became "standard" notice how the "night fighter" term went into the sunset.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 23, 2012)

Also ... all Navigators are not equal .... using the most talented as Pathfinders was intelligent. Didn't the USAAF use lead Bombardiers in daylight Ops even with the Norden ....?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Also ... all Navigators are equal .... using the most talented as Pathfinders was intelligent. Didn't the USAAF use lead Bombadiers in daylight Ops even with the Norden ....?


Yep - and later in the war I believe bombadier positions were manned by NCOs who just released the bombs on the lead's command - these guys were known as "togglers."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

I think the P-332s would have been a great home defense fighter and multi engine trainer for the RAF, nothing much more.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 23, 2012)

Doh 

A day fighter, turboed, with handed (= opposite rotation) engines, P-38 (F,G,H) for the RAF (okay, and RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF) units - how about that? As already stated in the 1st post...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

As mentioned I think the RAAF and RNZAF would have benefitted the most


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 23, 2012)

> As mentioned I think the RAAF and RNZAF would have benefitted the most



Sure would have, the range would have been most useful for both services, considering the island ops both forces carried out in the Pacific. The RAAF did actually operate the P-38E as a strictly photo recon machine, but they only had three of them.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 23, 2012)

The P38 would have been a usefull addition to the Coastal Comand inventory, having a fighter with good range over the North Sea and Bay of Biscay supporting the Beaus and anti U boat bombers could have well saved a number of lives!


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 23, 2012)

The area where the P-38 could be of interest is also MTO. Operating from Gibraltar and Malta in 1942, so the convoys have easier time?


----------



## Balljoint (Aug 23, 2012)

If I recall correctly, some P-38s were equipped with plexi noses and bombsights and others had radar operators as night fighters. While heavy ordinance was external, the lightning could lug a ton or so. These weren’t the detuned early models the Brits got, but it shows the potential


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only reason why pathfinders were needed is because the RAF was expected to go out at night in all conditions and find their targets. On a moonlit night you can see terrain and ground features quite well, this is from actual flying experience and I'm sure other civilian and former military pilots on this forum will agree with me. It's when target areas become obscured either by weather or defensive measures where pathfinders become necessary, aside from marking the target.



Well that, and that apparently they weren't very good at night navigation. Don't know how often VFR conditions existed, and how much better the navigation was in those conditions. And remember, these were bombers with dedicated trained navigators.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing that makes the Mosquito a "night fighter" was it's radar equipment. Aside from things like flame arrestors and minor cockpit mods, true WW2 night fighters were based on the installation of radar.



That would make the P-61 the only "true" nightfighter of WW2. But what is really different between it and the contemporary NF.XXX? Seating position, disposition of monitors?




FLYBOYJ said:


> After WW2 when this equipment became "standard" notice how the "night fighter" term went into the sunset.



It was some time after WW2 before radar became standard equipment. In the mean time I believe radar euipped fighters were known as "all weather fighters"




FLYBOYJ said:


> They were and that's another reason why the "Merlin Myth" was so difficult to really confirm, but that's another story.



Which myth is that? That Lockheed prepared performance estimates of a P-38 with Merlins - or three?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Well that, and that apparently they weren't very good at night navigation. Don't know how often VFR conditions existed, and how much better the navigation was in those conditions. And remember, these were bombers with dedicated trained navigators.


Without the aid of electronic equipment, mainly ADF, you're navigating with "pilotage" and "dead reckoning." Pilotage you need ground references, Dead reckoning depended in knowing winds aloft and depending how accurate you neded to get, air temperatures. Finally you have celestial navigation which could be difficult but used in a combination of any of the three could be used effectively, especially over the European Continent.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> That would make the P-61 the only "true" nightfighter of WW2. But what is really different between it and the contemporary NF.XXX? Seating position, disposition of monitors?


 Radar equipment. The P-61 was the only aircraft designed fromt he ground up as a night fighter. Take the radar equipment away and it was just another large twin engine fighter.


wuzak said:


> It was some time after WW2 before radar became standard equipment. In the mean time I believe radar euipped fighters were known as "all weather fighters"


They were and the term "all weather"seemed to spring up in the early 1950s.



wuzak said:


> Which myth is that? That Lockheed prepared performance estimates of a P-38 with Merlins - or three?


There were studies done, I never seen any published and there were rumors that even drawings were started trying to fit the Merlin into the P-38. There was even talk of getting rid of the yoke and putting a stick in the aircraft, again heard from more than one person who i used to work with who worked on the P-38 during WW2.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Radar equipment. The P-61 was the only aircraft designed fromt he ground up as a night fighter. Take the radar equipment away and it was just another large twin engine fighter.



So, how is it different to the NF.XXX? They shared the same radar after all. The only difference I can see is that the NF.XXX was based on an existing airframe.




FLYBOYJ said:


> There were studies done, I never seen any published and there were rumors that even drawings were started trying to fit the Merlin into the P-38. There was even talk of getting rid of the yoke and putting a stick in the aircraft, again heard from more than one person who i used to work with who worked on the P-38 during WW2.



There is the story that a P-38 was delivered to Rolls-Royce for a trial fitment of Merlins - before word cam down from on high to return the P-38 untouched. This was later, and not related to the Lightning Is.


----------



## davebender (Aug 23, 2012)

The Mustang was built to British specifications and hundreds were purchased from 1941 onward. What can a P-38 do that a Mustang cannot?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 23, 2012)

> British specifications



The aircraft that became the Mustang was built to a British requirement, not to a particular spec by them. Originally the Brits wanted NA to build P-40s under licence for them. That's when 'Dutch' Kindleberger reputedly said "we can build you a better airplane than the P-40"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> So, how is it different to the NF.XXX? They shared the same radar after all. The only difference I can see is that the NF.XXX was based on an existing airframe.


 Don't know what you mean by NF.XXX




wuzak said:


> There is the story that a P-38 was delivered to Rolls-Royce for a trial fitment of Merlins - before word cam down from on high to return the P-38 untouched. This was later, and not related to the Lightning Is.


Never heard that one but I wouldn't say it wasn't a possibility


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Mustang was built to British specifications and hundreds were purchased from 1941 onward. What can a P-38 do that a Mustang cannot?


If we're on subject talking about the P-332s, there couldn't even come close to an Allison Mustang


----------



## wuzak (Aug 24, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't know what you mean by NF.XXX



Mosquito NF.XXX.

Could be fitted with British AI Mk IX or AI Mk X (British designation for the SCR 720) radar. But mostly fitted with the Mk X, I believe.

The Mosquito NF.XIX could also take both, but it only had single stage engines, IIRC, so had lower performance.




FLYBOYJ said:


> Never heard that one but I wouldn't say it wasn't a possibility



The story continues that political pressure by GM forced the USAAF to ask for the plane back. Not sure who sent the P-38 to Rolls-Royce in the first place.

At some stage there must have been some serious consideration to a Merlin P-38, since 1/3 of Packard production was to be used for American aircarft. At the beginning of Packard production there really was only the P-40 as a viable recipient.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2012)

Don forget guys that in wartime over enemy occupied Europe you are faced with both active and passive defences. i dont ow much of a difference it makes, but ther is a full blackout, smoke machines, radar jammers , flak covering geographic points like rivers, coasts and road junctons. its a harder excercise in wartime i would think....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2012)

Navigating over Europe at night was so easy that during the famous Nuremberg raid at least a couple of Pathfinders marked Shweinfurt. There were green target indicators backed up by reds and also red and yellow skymarkers reported by confused Mainforce crews who proceeded to bomb Schweinfurt. No single Pathfinder carried this combination of markers.

Schweinfurt is roughly 60 miles from Nuremberg,as the crow flies.

Steve


----------



## beitou (Aug 24, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Radar equipment. The P-61 was the only aircraft designed fromt he ground up as a night fighter. Take the radar equipment away and it was just another large twin engine fighter.
> They were and the term "all weather"seemed to spring up in the early 1950s.
> 
> 
> There were studies done, I never seen any published and there were rumors that even drawings were started trying to fit the Merlin into the P-38. There was even talk of getting rid of the yoke and putting a stick in the aircraft, again heard from more than one person who i used to work with who worked on the P-38 during WW2.



What would be the advantage of a stick over a yoke ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2012)

beitou said:


> What would be the advantage of a stick over a yoke ?



Less cumbersome
Less moving parts
Easier to rig flight controls
Better feel of the aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Mosquito NF.XXX.
> 
> Could be fitted with British AI Mk IX or AI Mk X (British designation for the SCR 720) radar. But mostly fitted with the Mk X, I believe.
> 
> The Mosquito NF.XIX could also take both, but it only had single stage engines, IIRC, so had lower performance.



Ok - but point being, take the radar equipment away and the aircraft becomes a twin engine fighter as the same for the P-61




wuzak said:


> The story continues that political pressure by GM forced the USAAF to ask for the plane back. Not sure who sent the P-38 to Rolls-Royce in the first place.
> 
> At some stage there must have been some serious consideration to a Merlin P-38, since 1/3 of Packard production was to be used for American aircarft. At the beginning of Packard production there really was only the P-40 as a viable recipient.


Again, it wouldn't surprise me, but IMO I don't think the merlin would have that great of an improvement on the P-38. What "should have" been done was to produce the P-38K


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 24, 2012)

I imagine the Brits would have liked using the Lightning for Rhubarbs.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 25, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> I imagine the Brits would have liked using the Lightning for Rhubarbs.



Makes sense, that's what the Westland Whirlwind was commonly used for. I imagine having two engines, even liquid-cooled ones (just opened a can of worms there ) would be a boon for ground attack operations. Wonder how well a P-38J modified with two or three British 20mm H-S's in the nose and some HVAR/RP-3 racks would've done.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 26, 2012)

Rhubarbs ....

"... A little-known role of the P-38 in the European theater was that of _*fighter-bomber *_during the invasion of Normandy and the Allied advance across France into Germany. Assigned to the IX Tactical Air Command, the 370th Fighter Group and its P-38s initially flew missions from England, dive-bombing radar installations, enemy armor, troop concentrations, and flak towers.[61] The 370th's group commander Howard F. Nichols and a squadron of his P-38 Lightnings attacked Field Marshal Günther von Kluge's headquarters in July 1944; Nichols himself *skipped a 500 lb (227 kg) bomb through the front door*.[62] The 370th later operated from Cardonville France, flying ground attack missions against gun emplacements, troops, supply dumps and tanks near Saint-Lô in July and in the Falaise-Argentan area in August 1944.[61] The 370th participated in ground attack missions across Europe until February 1945 when the unit changed over to the P-51 Mustang."

[Wikipedia]

... I've always liked rhubarb


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 27, 2012)

I don't really know if "Proper" P-38's would have had much of an impact in British hands only because by the time the F-15 with combat flaps was delivered we were in the war and starting to take the load from them.

Before the J-25 was produced the yoke was needed to give the pilot a bit of extra leverage for aileron deflection at higher speeds.

According to a number of sources compressibility was not an issue below 20,000ft. To Quote Hurlbut Co 82nd FG When we were dive bombing we rarely started from less than 12,000ft because the 38 accelerated to fast to get lined up properly and even more rarely from above 20,000ft so we could avoid compressibility. Thats one reason why you never hear of complaints about compressibility anywhere but the ETO where the norm was to fly from 25,000ft and higher.
Another was that when the pilots the the Pacific and the Med dove from higher than 20,000ft the would pill back their throttles and put the props into a flat pitch and if needed rock the wings to add drag which would keep the aircraft to a controllable speed by enough margin to get out of the dive when required as related by a pilot of the 475th FG.
According to Warren Bodie Lockheed test pilots never encountered Compressibility if the dive started from 25,000ft or below.

The P-38 was great at ground attack and could carry a greater load that either the P-47 or the P-51. There are many photos of P-38 F to Js with field installed bomb shackles, up to 4, so that they could carry 6 500lb bombs at a time in the PTO and MTO. All P-38s were cleared to carry 2 300gal drop tanks (about 2,000lbs each), with speed restrictions, so weight carrying ability was not an issue. The H and J models were officially rated at 3,2oolbs a limit imposed by the stock pylons and aerodynamic issues. Later P-38Ls were reported to have flown with two 1,000lb bombs and ten 5" rockets a 5,000lb load.

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Mustang was built to British specifications and hundreds were purchased from 1941 onward. What can a P-38 do that a Mustang cannot?



The early P-38s could fight at 20-30,000ft which the Allison powered Mustangs could not do. 

"By July of 1941, the RAF recognized that there probably would be a need for high altitude capabilities, and the original contract was amended to provide for the delivery of 143 Lightning Is (British military serials AE978/999 and AF100/220) with the originally-specified V-1710-15 un-turbosupercharged engines, with the remaining 524 aircraft (serials AF221/AF744) to be delivered as Lightning IIs (Model 322-60-04) with turbosupercharged V-1710-F5L and -F5R engines with guaranteed top speeds of 415 mph at 20,000 feet."

"The first three Lightnings arrived in the UK by sea transport in March of 1942"

Both quotes from Joe Baugher's web pages. 

It isn't until the end of April or into May of 1942 that the "Idea" of the Merlin powered Mustang begins to pick up any steam. And Merlin 60 series engines aren't exactly lying around unused either. First Production Merlin Mustang doesn't fly until May of 1943 and first Dallas built plane flies in August. 

Turboed P-38s could have been in British use ( in small numbers) around 9 months to year before the Merlin Mustangs showed up.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 28, 2012)

It wasn't until mid 1943 that the British found out what a real P-38 could do.

Test No 56 Duxford Station 1943

Note 46. The P-38 for a twin engine fighter is extremely maneuverable.
Note 47. The P-38 has a fast rate of roll and a good stall allowing the pilot to get the best out of it in combat.
Note 47. Tested with a Spitfire IX at various altitudes the Spitfire was slightly superior in turning radius at all altitudes
Note 49. it was found during trials the P-38 had difficulty keeping his sights on the Spitfire due to its superior turning radius and the Spitfire had difficulty allowing the correct lead on the P-38 and at times was considerably upset in the turbulence which was considerable.
Note 50. The Spitfire accelerated better that the P-38 at various altitudes.
Note 51. The Spitfire was behind the P-38 when the P-38 rolled over on its back and pulled out in a three-quarter roll, when the Spitfire followed the pilot blacked out and was forced to break off the attack.

There is more and these notes are excerpts. If I can I will scan and post the test. but it is very faint and have had no luck so far.

The P-38s were up to the task but they never really tried to use them.

The British custom ordered two aircraft from the US factories the P-38 with down rated engines and no turbo's and the Allison Mustang - and they didn't like either though in their final form they were both war winners!

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> The British custom ordered two aircraft from the US factories the P-38 with down rated engines and no turbo's and the Allison Mustang - and they didn't like either though in their final form they were both war winners!
> 
> Bill



Thank you for your work in typing up those notes.

The British did order a large number of P-38s with the down rated (old C-15) engines, but due to circumstances only 3 were delivered. 
Allison Mustangs were disliked enough to have 2 squadrons still using them over what was left of Germany in April 1945, over two years after the last one rolled off the production line. It might not have been a mid to hi-altitude fighter ( but neither was the Typhoon/Tempest) but is seems to have been liked well enough for what it could do.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 28, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> The British custom ordered two aircraft from the US factories the P-38 with down rated engines and no turbo's and the Allison Mustang - and they didn't like either though in their final form they were both war winners!
> 
> Bill



Not true the RAF absolutely loved the Allison Mustang, Army Co-operation squadrons kept them flying till they ran out of parts. The last Allison models werent struck off charge till early 1945 not bad for an aircraft that would have been built in 1941 or 42.

edit: Doh beaten by SR6 must learn to type faster


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 28, 2012)

Pilots liked it to a point but overall it wasn't enough better than the P-40 to stay in production. In October, November and December 43 the factory sat idle. At about that same time the Merlin was was being considered for the P-51 which December, January time frame was installed and testing begun. There were not tremendous expectations the Merlin in the P-51, in the P-40 it was not the night to day conversion it was in the P-51 and the extra fuel tankage was not even contemplated until the Merlin/low drag/laminar flow wing showed what it was capable of.

I'm not running down the P-51 it was an exceptional aircraft.

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2012)

"In August of 1942, 400 P-51Bs were ordered on the basis of NAA's performance estimates."

"The first XP-51B was flown by Bob Chilton on November 30, 1942."

"The first A-36A flew on September 21, 1942. Deliveries of the A-36A were completed by the following March."

"On March 11, 1941, the Lend/Lease Act was passed by Congress, permitting the "lending" of American-built aircraft to nations deemed "vital to the security of the United States". On September 25, 1941, the US Army ordered 150 Mustangs under the provisions of Lend-Lease for delivery to Britain. All previous RAF Mustangs had been direct purchases by Britain. These Lend-Lease Mustangs were designated Mustang Mark IA by the RAF and NA-91 by the factory. ......but this was changed to *Mustang* at about the time the deliveries began in mid- 1942."

Kind of reverse order but the factory was not sitting idle in October, November and December *42.*

British were out of money, US Army was out of money for fighters which is why the _A-36_ designation. 

P-40 used a single stage Merlin, P-51s used a two stage Merlin, difference at over 20,000ft was several hundred HP Like the difference between 1120hp at 18,000-18,500ft (no ram) and 1260hp at 26,000ft (climb ram) for a -3 Merlin. The -1 Merlin in the P-40 may have been down to 900hp at 26,000ft. Even if it still had 1000hp the -3 Merlin offered a good 25% more power than the -1 used in the P-40. Let alone what the power difference was between an Allison and an -3 Merlin at 25,000ft or so. Great things were expected from the Merlin Mustang even before it was flown as evidenced not only by the initial 400 plane order several months before the prototype flew but the tooling up of the Dallas factory to Produce Merlin Mustangs. First Dallas built plane flying in in Aug of 1943 which meant tooling up began months before.

" The huge Inglewood, California factory was greatly expanded and dedicated solely to Mustang production, with the B-25 Mitchell program being transferred to Kansas City." 
"Production of the AT-6 series of trainers had earlier been transferred from Inglewood to a new plant built in great haste at Dallas, Texas. The USAAF instructed NAA to expand the Dallas plant even further as a second source for Mustangs."
"By the end of January 1943 the production standard for the P-51B/C had been decided"

That means all the redesign and re-stressing for the higher weights and power including upping the under wing ordnance from 500lbs each side to 1000lbs each side. 

All lines in quotation marks form Joe Baughers web site.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 28, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> It wasn't until mid 1943 that the British found out what a real P-38 could do.
> 
> Test No 56 Duxford Station 1943
> 
> ...


 


Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for your work in typing up those notes.
> 
> The British did order a large number of P-38s with the down rated (old C-15) engines, but due to circumstances only 3 were delivered.
> Allison Mustangs were disliked enough to have 2 squadrons still using them over what was left of Germany in April 1945, over two years after the last one rolled off the production line. It might not have been a mid to hi-altitude fighter ( but neither was the Typhoon/Tempest) but is seems to have been liked well enough for what it could do.



Indeed, thanks for the effort, Bill.

Just a note about the P-38s the British French ordered - they did not ordered the down rated engines, but the ones that were to be produced in 1940 - the V-1710 C-15s, same ones that were to power the P-40s, for the same customer (not only for them, of course). With turbo, those were capable for circa 100 HP more (1150 HP). Alas, the customer's request meant that the examples delivered were to be powered with 2 x 1040 HP, ie. turbo installation was not part of the order. Fine for 1940, but not for 1942, when the 1st examples of the Model 322 were tested at Boscombe Down. So the RAF turned down their order. 
Again, the engines of the F series (where the reduction gear was capable to withstand more than 1200 HP, unlike the ones C series' reduction gears were capable to), like the F-5s that were powering the P-38Fs (1325 HP each engine, authorized from Aug 1942), were distant future in 1940.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 29, 2012)

I stand corrected on the P-51 seems there is as much bad info on it out there as the P-38. Though I do think there is more to it than plant modifications and there was no lack of money if the AAF really wanted it.

I was involved in an auto plant retooling/modification for a major model change at a GM plant, we did a running changeover with the plant only being down two weeks. There was no reason to stop production from that standpoint. The final design for the Merlin Mustang wasn't decided before the end of January then they re-stressed the aircraft. They couldn't even build the final tooling until the March time frame. The first P-51B came off the line in May. So I would believe there was more to it. I ran across J Baugher's P-51 site this morning and picked up some info that is new to me.

As for the P-38 You are correct Tomo. The 1710-C engines were 30-40hp less than the 1710-F engines used in the P-38 at that time this is why I used the term down rated. 

I have difficulty typing at times so I sometimes truncate things.

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> I stand corrected on the P-51 seems there is as much bad info on it out there as the P-38. Though I do think there is more to it than plant modifications and there was no lack of money if the AAF really wanted it.



Congress appropriates the money. Maybe the AAF could have swapped money around but that means cutting another program unless they get MORE money from congress. Aircraft were being delivered 1-2 years after the appropriations were made. The first 524 or so P-40s were actually split over two fiscal years even though the order/s were placed the same day. Ordered in the spring (April 26) of 1939, the first production plane isn't delivered until April of 1940 (and the P-36 line already exists) and due to deferring delivers to France and England the order isn't completed until the summer of 1941. 



wmaxt said:


> I have difficulty typing at times so I sometimes truncate things.
> 
> Bill



I know what you mean, I had to go back and make about 8-10 correction just in the above.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 30, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Allison Mustangs were disliked enough to have 2 squadrons still using them over what was left of Germany in April 1945, over two years after the last one rolled off the production line. It might not have been a mid to hi-altitude fighter ( but neither was the Typhoon/Tempest) but is seems to have been liked well enough for what it could do.


 Grammy always said Rhubarb is good for you.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 30, 2012)

wmaxt said:


> Pilots liked it to a point but overall it wasn't enough better than the P-40 to stay in production. In October, November and December 43 the factory sat idle. At about that same time the Merlin was was being considered for the P-51 which December, January time frame was installed and testing begun. There were not tremendous expectations the Merlin in the P-51, in the P-40 it was not the night to day conversion it was in the P-51 and the extra fuel tankage was not even contemplated until the Merlin/low drag/laminar flow wing showed what it was capable of.
> 
> I'm not running down the P-51 it was an exceptional aircraft.
> 
> Bill


 Did the P-40 and P-51 receive the same Merlins? I thought the P-40's received Merlins w/single stage superchargers.

PS: Just realized someone else addressed this in an earlier post.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 30, 2012)

With RAF fielding the P-38F in 1942, the cockpit heater issues can be brought to the surface addressed earlier, so the USAAF has far smoother ride in the winter of the 1943/44. Maybe also a timely addition of a second generator? 
Another problem that plagued the P-38J, would be also smaller with less efficient intercoolers, namely the fuel puddling due (among other causes) the mixture overcooling. The proper pilotage techniques (on cruising - low rpm, high manifold pressure) should still apply, if only for better mileage.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 30, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> With RAF fielding the P-38F in 1942, the cockpit heater issues can be brought to the surface addressed earlier, so the USAAF has far smoother ride in the winter of the 1943/44. Maybe also a timely addition of a second generator?


 Weren't these issues being discovered and debugged in the Aleutians?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 31, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> With RAF fielding the P-38F in 1942, the cockpit heater issues can be brought to the surface addressed earlier, so the USAAF has far smoother ride in the winter of the 1943/44. Maybe also a timely addition of a second generator?
> Another problem that plagued the P-38J, would be also smaller with less efficient intercoolers, namely the fuel puddling due (among other causes) the mixture overcooling. The proper pilotage techniques (on cruising - low rpm, high manifold pressure) should still apply, if only for better mileage.


 
Turbo RPM and carburetor/intercooler problems also limited the engine power and combat ceilings on early Lightnings. The problem was still present on the P-38G in early to mid 1943. Absolute ceiling was close to 40,000 ft, but combat ceiling was only 35,000 ft according to USAAF tests.

You've also got problems with tail-flutter effecting the early sub-types, armament installation problems, as well as the aforementioned cockpit heating issues ect.

I don't think the P-38 is really combat ready until the P-38G appears from June/July 1942. If you look at the tactical trials, the G is much better than the F.

I don't think the P-38 would change the RAF's mind about the feasibility of long-range escort missions in daylight. 

One of the other major rubs is logistics. Adopting a highly complex aircraft like the P-38 is going to take some serious engineering resources, particularly given the trouble related to the confluence of the GE turbochargers, the Allison engines, the English climate and the fuel/aromatics situation. Sections of the RAF wanted the Typhoon canned because the Sabre was such a resources hog. I wonder what said elements would do once the P-38 arrived?

There's also the question of airfields and operations. While it was fine on grass fields, the P-38 needed much longer take-off distances than the Spitfire or even the Typhoon, so the airfields it can operate from are going to be somewhat limited.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> Turbo RPM and carburetor/intercooler problems also limited the engine power and combat ceilings on early Lightnings. The problem was still present on the P-38G in early to mid 1943. Absolute ceiling was close to 40,000 ft, but combat ceiling was only 35,000 ft according to USAAF tests.



Intercooler issues were rectified only once the -J entered service, in late 1943. The 35000 ft of combat ceiling is only some 1500 ft lower than the Spit V? 
With P-38s employed to protect Med convoys, the service ceiling is more than enough.



> You've also got problems with tail-flutter effecting the early sub-types, armament installation problems, as well as the aforementioned cockpit heating issues ect.



I've mentioned the poor cockpit heater just two posts above, and contemplated that earlier recognition (winter of 1942/43, operations at ETO) handling of the issue would benefit the USAAF's operation of the P-38s during the winter of 1943/44. 
The subtype that more or less satisfactory had the issue of the tail flutter solved (via installation of the wing fillets) was the P-38D, produced in 1941. So no such problems for the -Fs in 1942. 
If you can point out what were the armament installation problems, I'd appreciate that.



> I don't think the P-38 is really combat ready until the P-38G appears from June/July 1942. If you look at the tactical trials, the G is much better than the F.



The -F was the 1st fully capable P-38 - self sealing tanks installed, while from the -E the MGs are in staggered layout, allowing for greater ammo capacity. As for the -G being that better than the -F, the minor changes of the engine do not make that much of the difference. Again, I'd like to take a look at the tactical comparisons; the ones including the Spit IX and -F are not unfavorable for the P-38. 



> I don't think the P-38 would change the RAF's mind about the feasibility of long-range escort missions in daylight.



Think we can agree on that. It could make the path smoother for the USAAF, though. 



> One of the other major rubs is logistics. Adopting a highly complex aircraft like the P-38 is going to take some serious engineering resources, particularly given the trouble related to the confluence of the GE turbochargers, the Allison engines, the English climate and the fuel/aromatics situation.



Since the RAF's technicians (even those of the Indian air force) managed to get the grips of the 4-engined, turboed bombers, maybe the P-38 was well within their scope? 
Fuel/aromatics situation Engilsh climate issues were compounded by wrong engine regimes used by USAAF pilots in winter of 1943/44 (high RPM, low MAP, instead vice versa) and the better intercoolers of the -J model. Applying proper cruise technique improves situation, and so do the less efficient intercoolers of the -F/G/H P-38s.



> Sections of the RAF wanted the Typhoon canned because the Sabre was such a resources hog. I wonder what said elements would do once the P-38 arrived?



Maybe the crews commanders of the saved ships bombers (thanks to the fighter with a footprint) would had something to say? Let alone if the P-38 arrives via LL?



> There's also the question of airfields and operations. While it was fine on grass fields, the P-38 needed much longer take-off distances than the Spitfire or even the Typhoon, so the airfields it can operate from are going to be somewhat limited.



With 2 x 150 gals of the external fuel, the P-38G have had the same take off distance as the P-40E with 75 gal drop tank (cca 1900 ft) - so no problems there.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 1, 2012)

Tomo, I agree with most of your post.

I agree with you that the P-38F was the first combat ready P-38 with the comment that it was a late P-38-15 with maneuvering flaps.

Tail flutter was indeed corrected with the wing to pod fillets in the D model though the AAF insisted on adding external counter balancers.

The early intercooler issues were much exaggerated by the AAF. Cpt Ben Kelsy the AAF project for the P-38 felt 54" MAP was a much more realistic limit and in combat most pilots pushed the pressure past the 44" the AAF test pilots recommended. I've read account of pilots hitting 86" in a P-38H - think of what the performance would be!

Pilot operation of the P-38 in the ETO had many problems. High RPM and low MAP led to:
1. Cold oil and poor lubrication leading to blown engines when the power goes up rapidly.
2. The cockpit hear was from drawing air across the exhaust pipe as it entered the heater ducting. The exhaust pipe isn't very hot in these conditions so the heat was degraded - not that it was very good at the best of times.
3. cold turbo's and turbo oil giving poor lubrication again causing lag and possible explosion when the power is quickly added.
4. Poor fuel usage larger boost ratings lead to greater cylinder pressures which equal better efficiency - more power and better fuel economy at the same time.

After Toney LeVier went to England in February/March and talked to then flew for the pilots showing just what a P-38 could do helped clear these issues up and the problems greatly diminished.

Above 30,000ft the high aspect elevator and narrow props lost effectiveness, the P-38 lost many of its advantages but could still hold its own. The P-38K would have corrected most of the problems, but was not approved by the WPB because the P-38 was considered to important to interrupt the delivery of two weeks production. The P-38K was tested in late '43, and according to the AAF "It far exceeded every other fighter the AAF had in every measurable performance category". 

Bill


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Weren't these issues being discovered and debugged in the Aleutians?



It was brought in this forum that Aleutian P-38s were flying at mid altitudes (typically under 15000 ft), so the cockpit heater was fine for them. Once the multi-hour operations started at 25-30000 ft, in ETO, during winter, the proverbial hit the fan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2012)

The weather in the Aleutians is not as bad as many people think, they are warmed by the Japanese current, the Pacific version of the Gulf Stream. While not a tropical paradise it is not anywhere near as cold as Fairbanks, even Anchorage has better weather than Fairbanks. 

Weather for the Island Dutch Harbor is on:

" The mean annual temperature for Unalaska is about 40.5 °F (4.7 °C), being about 31.5 °F (−0.3 °C) in January and about 52 °F (11.1 °C) in August. With about 225 rainy days a year, Unalaska is among the rainiest places in the United States."

A cold miserable place to be stationed or fight in but not the temperatures needed to discover the Problems of the P-38.


----------



## eagledad (Sep 1, 2012)

Tomo,

In regards to cockpit heat on the P-38, the US recognized that it was a problem as least as early as March 1943. There were also reports about that problem coming from the PR squadrons (mainly the 13th) in England in May of 1943. I believe that many of the same problems that the 55th FG experienced with their P-38H's had already been discovered and reported by the PR squadrons at least 6 months before the P-38H's were committed to combat. Why the USAAF was so slow in fixing the problems is a mystery to me.

Eagledad

Sources ww2aircraftperformance, and "Eyes of the Eighth"


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 2, 2012)

The WPB (War Production Board) permission was required for most modifications and all modifications that might affect production but this doesn't explain all of the delays in fixing some of the issues in the P-38 as far as I have been able to uncover.

1. The Dive Flaps were approved by Cpt.Kelsy in the April '43 time frame. 
2. Another problem was the single generator that the P-38 needed because it had a substantially greater electrical requirements. Some pilots of the 20th FG say that single generators are to blame for the loss of more planes than the engine problems.
3. Cockpit heat

Until mid 1943 Ventura's were being built in the same factory as the P-38, also there were problems with the new 'Core" type intercoolers that required Lockheed to build the H model while getting these issues worked out. By December 43 they were building J and H models side by side. These production issues may have affected the decisions to implement the modifications noted above.

The second generator, dive flaps and hydraulic ailerons were introduced on the J-25 model. The J-25 also added a second heat source on the left engine, the first was on the right engine, to turbo exhaust pipe for added heat, the second generator allowed a heated flight suit to be used.

With the L model More powerful/strengthened engines, heavier bomb/drop tank pylons were strengthened to accommodate 2,000 bombs and mounts for the rocket tree were installed.

The P-38K with paddle props that would have added greatly to the P-38s performance ( how does sitting at a stop on the runway to 20,000ft in 5min flat grab you) because they would have stopped the production line for about two weeks and the P-38 was to important to allow any delay, by the WPB. Another modification was a unified throttle quadrant was also stopped by the WPB, I don't know what the reason was. The WPB was chaired by Dutch Kindleberger. 

Bill


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the P-332s would have been a great home defense fighter and multi engine trainer for the RAF, nothing much more.


 Not really. Without turbos it didn't have the altitude performance required for the Channel theatre. But, where it would have been invaluable, even in P-322-61-04 shape, was the Med. The P-322 Lightning I brought one great attribute lacking RAF fighters in the Med - range. The altitude issue also wasn't a problem as the most common opponents in the Med were the Fiat G.50 and the Machi C200, both of which had low ceilings. The P-322 would have outrun, out-gunned and out-ranged any Italian fighter, and given even the Bf109-E and F problems . Flying from Gibraltar and Egypt, P-322s would have allowed much better protection for convoys to Malta, being easily able to catch and dispatch any Axis bomber, and a good match for their ME110 escorts. And over the Desert they could have got in behind the enemy line and strafed their transport, forcing the Axis to divert fighters to the rear areas more. The P-322s would even have shared engine maintenance with the P-40s sent to the theatre.
If the RAF had followed the usual practice for American aircraft - banished them from the UK to the Med and Far East - then the DAF would have had a true long-range day-fighter in mid-1942. Use of Lightning Is might then have inspired the RAF to accept the Lightning II for the theatre, which were equivalent to P-38Fs, and then we have the RAF using a long-range, 400mph day-fighter, which can cover the whole of the Med from Allied-held territory, from late 1942 or early 1943. I would suggest that would have made a difference, especially in concert with USAAF P-38s and B-24s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Not really. Without turbos it didn't have the altitude performance required for the Channel theatre. But, where it would have been invaluable, even in P-322-61-04 shape, was the Med. The P-322 Lightning I brought one great attribute lacking RAF fighters in the Med - range. The altitude issue also wasn't a problem as the most common opponents in the Med were the Fiat G.50 and the Machi C200, both of which had low ceilings. The P-322 would have outrun, out-gunned and out-ranged any Italian fighter, and given even the Bf109-E and F problems . Flying from Gibraltar and Egypt, P-322s would have allowed much better protection for convoys to Malta, being easily able to catch and dispatch any Axis bomber, and a good match for their ME110 escorts. And over the Desert they could have got in behind the enemy line and strafed their transport, forcing the Axis to divert fighters to the rear areas more. The P-322s would even have shared engine maintenance with the P-40s sent to the theatre.
> If the RAF had followed the usual practice for American aircraft - banished them from the UK to the Med and Far East - then the DAF would have had a true long-range day-fighter in mid-1942. Use of Lightning Is might then have inspired the RAF to accept the Lightning II for the theatre, which were equivalent to P-38Fs, and then we have the RAF using a long-range, 400mph day-fighter, which can cover the whole of the Med from Allied-held territory, from late 1942 or early 1943. I would suggest that would have made a difference, especially in concert with USAAF P-38s and B-24s.


A 7 year old post - made me forget about this one.

You made points but the fact was the RAF ordered these aircraft (despite the quantity), better to put them to use then let them sit. I'd rather be in a turbo-less lightning than in a Defiant or a Battle! 

And you forgot the second point* "trainer." *


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Can anyone post a test or stats for a 322 Non turbo Lightning? I’ve never seen any numbers for one


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2019)

I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> …..And you forgot the second point* "trainer." *


 I remember reading somewhere that having both props spinning the same way gave the P-322 some undesirable handling issues. The majority of the P-322s that went to the USAAF were given unturbocharged but handed engines (V-1710-27 and -29), and were described as "sweet" and "docile", so I assume the problem was just the handing of the engines. That and the Air Ministry's completely hide-bound inability to accept such technological advances as twin-engine fighters with tricycle undercarriages. I'm not sure you'd want a twin-trainer with poor handling.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 21, 2019)

The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939 - 1945 by Tim Mason has the following about the Lightning:

"For good measure, the only example to reach A&AEE, AF106 had no armament and was restricted to 300mph. Trials were limited to a brief assessment from April 1942. Handling was pleasant, although the elevator was heavy, the stall at 78mph (flaps and u/carriage down) straightforward, and flying on one engine comfortable and without foot loads down to 115mph. The red and green colouring of the engine controls was praised as was the tricycle undercarriage. The trial was of academic interest as the RAF had rejected the Lightning on the basis of unacceptable high altitude/ high speed characteristics found by RAF test pilots in the USA."

No figures recorded in the book.

Eric Brown flew the F-5 PR variant in 1945, not having flown the earlier variants; he had this to say about it (Wings of the Weird and Wonderful Vol 2):

"Landing the lightning was like child's play whether on two engines or one, and the latter case was made easier by the powered ailerons. This short acquaintance with the Lightning left me with the feeling of having enjoyed it but wondering how the earlier models had been so successful in combat. Certainly the earlier shortcomings had been improved sufficiently to keep this likeable aeroplane in good enough shape to survive to 1945, so I suppose it must have been very good by 1942 standards when it first appeared on the battle scene."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.


The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference. 
I also find it difficult to accept that heating was a major problem in actual combat as most aircraft of the time had poor or almost ineffective heating, why was the P38 so unique in it being such an issue?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2019)

Pilot wasn't sitting behind a 1/2 ton to one ton of hot metal 

Not saying that Spitfire or P-47 cockpits were comfy but sitting in a 0 degree cockpit and minus 20 degree cockpit for several hours aren't quite the same thing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 21, 2019)

In combat, adrenaline tends to take care of the temperature issue, but sometimes pilots are so cold appendages refuse to function (see heated trigger-thumb gloves for Spitfire pilots).

It's the tedious hours in-between that trapped sitting in -20/-30 tends to have a larger effect.

The P-38 was unique in this issue because the temperature the pilots felt was noticeably lower than other aircraft. I'm not sure what is difficult to accept.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference.
> I also find it difficult to accept that heating was a major problem in actual combat as most aircraft of the time had poor or almost ineffective heating, why was the P38 so unique in it being such an issue?


Depends on the individual German, the period of the war, and the theater what they thought of the p38. German pilots that encountered the pre J25/ L types being used for high altitude escort where they were not so well suited were not to impressed true but German pilots, at least some, and some pretty competent ones too like Franz Stigler, that encountered them under conditions more favorable to the Lightning in theaters where the fighting was done at low to medium altitude found them to be tough oposition.
Certainly if you take range out of the equation the Spitfire is alot better in the fighter role but that's the point, many times that range is critical and that is what most RAF types, as good as they were lacked.
It would have given the RAF the ability to project power in the form of a high performance fighter( at low to mid altitudes) at much longer ranges. That would seem to be if not a game changer than at least a huge posative adition to capabilities.
Sometimes it's better to have a fighter that's pretty good that can get there than one that's superlative that can't. Imho.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Depends on the individual German, the period of the war, and the theater what they thought of the p38. German pilots that encountered the pre J25/ L types being used for high altitude escort where they were not so well suited were not to impressed true but German pilots, at least some, and some pretty competent ones too like Franz Stigler, that encountered them under conditions more favorable to the Lightning in theaters where the fighting was done at low to medium altitude found them to be tough oposition.
> Certainly if you take range out of the equation the Spitfire is alot better in the fighter role but that's the point, many times that range is critical and that is what most RAF types, as good as they were lacked.
> It would have given the RAF the ability to project power in the form of a high performance fighter( at low to mid altitudes) at much longer ranges. That would seem to be if not a game changer than at least a huge posative adition to capabilities.
> Sometimes it's better to have a fighter that's pretty good that can get there than one that's superlative that can't. Imho.


Leigh Mallory's genius would have seen squadrons of pilots taken prisoner close to the Alps.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I remember reading somewhere that having both props spinning the same way gave the P-322 some undesirable handling issues. The majority of the P-322s that went to the USAAF were given unturbocharged but handed engines (V-1710-27 and -29), and were described as "sweet" and "docile", so I assume the problem was just the handing of the engines. That and the Air Ministry's completely hide-bound inability to accept such technological advances as twin-engine fighters with tricycle undercarriages. I'm not sure you'd want a twin-trainer with poor handling.


The only thing having the props turn in the same direction did was create a "critical engine" (This has been discussed in length through out this forum) and dozens of twins flown during that period were in the same boat, so I'd like to know if that statement about "undesirable handling issues" came from an actual pilot or the opinion of an author. Having an advanced twin with a critical engine is exactly what would you'd want. Taking this a step further, you would not be putting a green pilot in this aircraft, it would clearly be used for advanced training. The last point is in an advanced trainer, you don't want "sweet" and "docile," you want the student to work and be challenged enough so he could learn and develop proficiency without killing himself.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Germans didn't consider the early P38's to be a very effective enemy so overall I don't think they would have made much difference.



The early P-38s (F & G) get to England are declared operational at the end of Aug/beginning of Sept 1942 depending on group, first operations are flown in early Sept. In the first 320 sorties two Lightnings are lost due to non combat crashes, no claims of German aircraft? By the end of Oct most of the P-38s in England have been sent to North Africa and there are few, if any, P-38s left by the end of Nov. At least one B-17 escort mission was flown, perhaps more. But the target was in France, actual P-38 vs german fighter combat in the fall of 1942 in Europe was a very rare event. How the german pilots formed any valid conclusions of the P-38s abilities is a bit of an unknown. 
The Germans did fight the P-38s in NA with operation Torch and then Tunisia and Sicily/Italian invasion. So it is there that any German impressions would have to come from.

P-38H-5s were arriving in England in Aug of 1943.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The early P-38s (F & G) get to England are declared operational at the end of Aug/beginning of Sept 1942 depending on group, first operations are flown in early Sept. In the first 320 sorties two Lightnings are lost due to non combat crashes, no claims of German aircraft? By the end of Oct most of the P-38s in England have been sent to North Africa and there are few, if any, P-38s left by the end of Nov. At least one B-17 escort mission was flown, perhaps more. But the target was in France, actual P-38 vs german fighter combat in the fall of 1942 in Europe was a very rare event. How the german pilots formed any valid conclusions of the P-38s abilities is a bit of an unknown.
> The Germans did fight the P-38s in NA with operation Torch and then Tunisia and Sicily/Italian invasion. So it is there that any German impressions would have to come from.
> 
> P-38H-5s were arriving in England in Aug of 1943.


Yes, that's where the 3 German pilots whos quotes I read that gave the impression that they felt the p38 was a worthy adversary encountered them, in Na and the Med.
The J25s and Ls weren't in Western Europe in any significant numbers until mid 44 so encounters there would have been for the most part at least with the earlier types( sons dive flaps and engine troubles mostly worked out.)
Perhaps i was unclear in my post( always a posibiity)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2019)

The P-38 was not a common aircraft in most theaters until late 1943 and 1944. It was there but even in the Med it rarely or never exceeded 3 fighter groups in strength during that time. In Britain in Oct 1943 there were only 2 fighter groups equipped with P-38s compared to 7 fighter groups with P-47s. and the 2nd one didn't go operational until Nov? 
Aside from photo recon no P-38s had been used for combat from England from Oct/Nov of 1942 until Oct of 1943. The H version shows up in England in aug and goes operational in Oct 1943. It is the H that suffers most of the problems over the winter of 1943/44. The Fs and Gs had all gone to NA the year before. The first J's left the production line in Sept of 1943 but due to a shortage of the new intercoolers both the H and early J were produced at the same time as supplies of components allowed.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think if the RAF had gotten "proper p38s " it would have made a huge impact. Whatever the p38s shortcomings were, and it had some, the combination of range and good performance at low to medium altitude where the compresability issue is not too big or not at all would be significant.



The bulk of the RAF order of P-38s was to be "proper" P-38s - with handed engines and turbos. But the order was cancelled in favour of production of P-38Fs for the USAAF after Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2019)

Greyman said:


> In combat, adrenaline tends to take care of the temperature issue, but sometimes pilots are so cold appendages refuse to function (see heated trigger-thumb gloves for Spitfire pilots).
> 
> It's the tedious hours in-between that trapped sitting in -20/-30 tends to have a larger effect.
> 
> The P-38 was unique in this issue because the temperature the pilots felt was noticeably lower than other aircraft. I'm not sure what is difficult to accept.



There was nothing unique about the P38 and heating (or lack thereof). Certainly the Me110 and the Beaufighter had similar issues but you don't hear the cold being something made such a fuss over. I have read a couple of biographies where crews have switched from the Beaufighter to the Mossie and come back soaked to the skin with sweat as they had worn the same clothes as they had in the Beaufighter.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 22, 2019)

From a quick zip through P-38 Performance Tests :

_Pilots have reported that the heating of the cockpit is unsatisfactory. Inspection of the heating system revealed that the heating blast ducts are too small to be sufficient in heating the cockpit satisfactorily. It is recommended that the ducts be made of a larger diameter to secure more heating volume, and an attempt be made to make the cockpit airtight._

...

_RECOMMENDATIONS:_
_b) Suitable means of maintaining cockpit heat at altitude be installed. (Cockpit heater on P-39NO is best seen to date.)_


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 22, 2019)

Wildcat said:


> An Air Force that really would have benifited with the P-38 was the RAAF in the PTO.


Nah, their Beaufighters were much better. It was their highest scoring fighter in the last 2 years of the war. Besides, it had a navigator to get you home, just as much range and 50% more firepower. It could outrun all those Jap planes on the deck too.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2019)

What was unique about the P-38 in regards to cockpit heat or lack off it was the altitudes it flew at, and the time spent at those altitudes. Time of year didn't help. Comparing a plane flying at sea level or even 15,000 ft to one flying at 25,000 ft is a different environment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 22, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing having the props turn in the same direction did was create a "critical engine" (This has been discussed in length through out this forum) and dozens of twins flown during that period were in the same boat, so I'd like to know if that statement about "undesirable handling issues" came from an actual pilot or the opinion of an author. Having an advanced twin with a critical engine is exactly what would you'd want. Taking this a step further, you would not be putting a green pilot in this aircraft, it would clearly be used for advanced training. The last point is in an advanced trainer, you don't want "sweet" and "docile," you want the student to work and be challenged enough so he could learn and develop proficiency without killing himself.



To expand: it’s rare to use handed props. Check out current aircraft. 

Of course, most variants of the P-38 had a critical engine, as only one engine had a generator


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Nah, their Beaufighters were much better. It was their highest scoring fighter in the last 2 years of the war. Besides, it had a navigator to get you home, just as much range and 50% more firepower. It could outrun all those Jap planes on the deck too.



So could a Lockheed Ventura, doesn't mean the Ventura was really a fighter (although some were used as night fighters).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 25, 2019)

Greyman said:


> From a quick zip through P-38 Performance Tests :
> 
> _Pilots have reported that the heating of the cockpit is unsatisfactory. Inspection of the heating system revealed that the heating blast ducts are too small to be sufficient in heating the cockpit satisfactorily. It is recommended that the ducts be made of a larger diameter to secure more heating volume, and an attempt be made to make the cockpit airtight._
> 
> ...


The P-39N had the best cockpit heater. Very important. Especially at high altitude.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-39N had the best cockpit heater. Very important. Especially at high altitude.



That is ironic!


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> That is ironic!


The vast majority of fighters didn't need a heater at all, cooling and ventilation was the problem.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> wuzak said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that a P-38 pilot may be a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work he has to do by himself? Navigating at night, for example.
> ...




Ummm... Yes these posts are 7 years old - but the thread hasn't had a correction to the misinformation here, and both members are still posting (as of today, even), so here goes.

The P-38 was equipped with the AN/APS-6 air-air radar, and a second crewman "radar operator" with the P-38M - which flew in October 1944, and began production deliveries in January 1945 (unfortunately, they never made it into combat in WW2).






However, the F6F-3N & -5N Hellcat and F4U-2 Corsair DID see combat in WW2 - even with only one crewman! They were vectored to near the intruding Japanese aircraft by radar-equipped TMB Avengers, then used their own radar for the final approach & shot line-up.
TMB-1D with AN/APS-3 radar and spotlight, then TMB-3E with AN/APS-4 in removable pod:




A total of 34 F4U-1's were converted to F4U-2's with the addition of the AN/APS-6. Thirty two conversions were made at the Naval Aircraft Factory and two were made in the field at Rio Island, Kwajalein Atoll.
Navy Night Fighter Squadron VF-(N) drew first blood at Munda in April of 1944 when it surprised a flight of obsolete Japanese aircraft conducting nuisance raids. 

U.S. Navy Vought F4U-2 _Corsair_ night fighters from Night Fighting Squadron VFN-101 aboard the aircraft carrier USS _Intrepid_ (CV-11) during the Marshall Islands campaign in early 1944. A four-plane detachment of VFN-101 was assigned to Air Group 6 aboard the _Intrepid_.




Starting in July 1943, 200 F6F-3Ns were built, with the AN/APS-6 - seeing combat from November 1943 on. 1,435 F6F-5Ns with an improved AN/APS-6 were produced from May 1944 on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2019)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Ummm... Yes these posts are 7 years old - but the thread hasn't had a correction to the misinformation here, and both members are still posting (as of today, even), so here goes.



What misinformation? All the examples you showed began life as a "daytime flyers" and only became a night fighter after modification and if you read some of the pilot reports on these aircraft in their post mods, they weren't exactly user friendly. Would you want to be that radar operator riding piggy back in a P-38M?? I think my statement is still valid today as it was 7 years ago. The P-61 was designed as a nightfighter from the get-go. *Show me any other WW2 aircraft that was designed from the ground up as a nightfighter.* There was some thought put into ergonomics and the lay out of the aircraft, let alone the equipment. No radar pods, no overpacked cockpits, no piggy back RO smelling pilot flatulence. In the end the next generation of combat aircraft just about eclipsed the term "nightfighter" as the term "all weather" settled in and what was being achieved with bolt on mods eventually became standard equipment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 26, 2019)

Gents,

On the P38M what are the antennas for beneath the wings?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> On the P38M what are the antennas for beneath the wings?
> 
> ...


I believe the tree looking structure was a pylon to hold rockets

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe the tree looking structure was a pylon to hold rockets



I believe you are correct.

I couldn't find any actual photos, but did find soem pics of models.






Trumpeter 02227 Lockheed P-38L-5-LO lightning 

52 Lockheed P-38 over Europe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2019)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71N3hYYipUL._SL1000_.jpg
Amazon product


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2019)

GreenKnight121 said:


> However, the F6F-3N & -5N Hellcat and F4U-2 Corsair DID see combat in WW2 - even with only one crewman! They were vectored to near the intruding Japanese aircraft by radar-equipped TMB Avengers, then used their own radar for the final approach & shot line-up.



The method you describe might be a little different to H2S/H2X Pathfinders which were the ones doing the guiding and target marking based on radar showing ground details in overcast or night time conditions.

Most H2X pathfinders for the USAAF were B-17s.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 8, 2019)

Interesting question. First, lets assume that Britain did order '38s with the proper, "handed" engines, with turbos-and that the US government agreed to allow the sale of the turbos-AND that the WPB didn't recognize our need for a long range fighter and stop the sale for US interests. Let's also say that production ramped up to usable numbers by mid '41 (which might be the biggest "stretch" of these assumptions). It might have been possible if greater emphasis was placed on the P-38 production vs the Venture/Hudson that Lockheed was focusing on.

From the beginning the '38 with turbocharged Allisons made good power at high altitude. Timeline of mid-41...the Spit IX with the 2-speed, 2-stage Merlin was a year off from going operational IIRC. The Brits would have superiority at high altitude a year earlier than achieved-though how critical that really was is questionable given the respectable performance of the Spit in the existing form and that of German aircraft in '41.

The key thing it would have brought to the table was a fighter with some useful range for offensive operations. IIRC, the '38 had longer range than German bombers, let alone fighters. They could have been destroying German aircraft on their home turf, instead of waiting for them to be in range of British cities.

The Brits learned early on that unescorted daylight bombing was a fools game. The '38 would have given them a long range bomber escort 2+ years before the -51B first saw combat. What impact would that have had? Hard to say-the Lanc, as great a bomber as it was, was severely limited in defensive firepower vs the -17 or -24; even escorted losses might have been unacceptable.

The high-altitude issues the US encountered in late '43 would have been encountered and rectified far earlier.

Intercepts of attacking German aircraft could have been done at much longer range, and enemy formations attacked in stages (as our bomber raids were) with a long range fighter. Granted this was much less of an issue by '41 after the BOB.

Perhaps the biggest issue-the demand might have justified an additional production plant for the '38 early on-meaning we could have had sufficient ones available for long-range escort earlier in '43 when the US started intensive daylight bombing. A 2nd production facility would have facilitated incorporation of design changes without halting production.

Pilots and ground crews would have developed operations and tactics to best utilize the planes strengths and minimize it's weaknesses far earlier. Those lessons could have been passed on to American pilots in early 43, much as they were when applied to single-engined fighters.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2019)

The initial contract or Lightning Is was amended so that the first 143 delivered would be Lightning I's and the remaining 524 would be Lightning IIs with handed engines and turbos.



IdahoRenegade said:


> From the beginning the '38 with turbocharged Allisons made good power at high altitude. Timeline of mid-41...the Spit IX with the 2-speed, 2-stage Merlin was a year off from going operational IIRC. The Brits would have superiority at high altitude a year earlier than achieved-though how critical that really was is questionable given the respectable performance of the Spit in the existing form and that of German aircraft in '41.



"The first three Lightnings arrived in the UK by sea transport in March of 1942." 
Lightning I for RAF 

"The P-38D had a maximum speed of 390 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 8 minutes. Service ceiling was 39,000 feet. The first P-38Ds began to reach USAAF units in August 1941. "
Lockheed P-38D Lightning 

Only 66 Ds were made, and they were followed by the E.

Not sure how truly combat capable the P-38D and P-38E were.
"The P-38E was still not yet considered combat-ready, and most P-38Es were redesignated RP-38Es while others were used for various tests. "
Lockheed P-38E Lightning 

"The P-38F version of late 1942 was the first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready. It included 377 US-ordered aircraft, plus 150 planes that had originally been ordered under British and French contracts. "
Lockheed P-38F Lightning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The initial contract or Lightning Is was amended so that the first 143 delivered would be Lightning I's and the remaining 524 would be Lightning IIs with handed engines and turbos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Brits cancelled all orders for the -322 before the first ones were delivered. Needless to say-that put a major wrench in the gears of production emphasis. Sadly-Lockheed wasted engineering and production resources on this castrated aircraft-at a time when they COULD have been building combat capable, turbocharged ones. They wasted the engineering resources to make this "special" version-resources that might better have been spent sorting out the compressibility issues, or perhaps simplifying the cockpit. IIRC, only 3 -322s were ever delivered to the Brits-who didn't want them, and refused to quickly test or seriously consider them. Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.

The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The initial contract or Lightning Is was amended so that the first 143 delivered would be Lightning I's and the remaining 524 would be Lightning IIs with handed engines and turbos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Combat ready for where exactly? I don't think I'd rate my chances of survival highly in a duel between a P-38F/G against a Bf 109F/G. I'd much prefer a Spitfire IX on the Channel Front.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Combat ready for where exactly?



Everywhere.

Combat ready doesn't mean that it will be superior to the opposition, or even competitive, but that the aircraft has all necessay equipment, armament and armour required for combat operations.




Kevin J said:


> I don't think I'd rate my chances of survival highly in a duel between a P-38F/G against a Bf 109F/G.



I'd rather a P-38F than a P-38D or P-38E.




Kevin J said:


> I'd much prefer a Spitfire IX on the Channel Front.



Which goes against what IdahoRenegade is saying.

The Spitfire IX arrives in the ETO before a truly combat capable P-38 could is what I am saying.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Everywhere.
> 
> Combat ready doesn't mean that it will be superior to the opposition, or even competitive, but that the aircraft has all necessay equipment, armament and armour required for combat operations.
> 
> ...



I'd rather a P-38G than a P-38F. Against a Me110, no problem. Against Jap fighters, no problems. Against all but the latest 1943 edition Italian fighters, no problems. Against Luftwaffe single seat fighters, big problems. You can't outrun, outdive, out roll or outturn. Maybe the 1944 edition P-38J, definitely the P-38L for use on the Channel Front. I'd take the P-38H/J in Italy in 1943, just hope there wouldn't be too many Germans around. Against the Japs, I'd keep the Lightning till the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'd rather a P-38G than a P-38F. Against a Me110, no problem. Against Jap fighters, no problems. Against all but the latest 1943 edition Italian fighters, no problems. Against Luftwaffe single seat fighters, big problems. You can't outrun, outdive, out roll or outturn. Maybe the 1944 edition P-38J, definitely the P-38L for use on the Channel Front. I'd take the P-38H/J in Italy in 1943, just hope there wouldn't be too many Germans around. Against the Japs, I'd keep the Lightning till the end of the war.



Introducing the P-38H /J in the ETO in 1943 is an act of desperation.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> The Brits cancelled all orders for the -322 before the first ones were delivered. Needless to say-that put a major wrench in the gears of production emphasis. Sadly-Lockheed wasted engineering and production resources on this castrated aircraft-at a time when they COULD have been building combat capable, turbocharged ones. They wasted the engineering resources to make this "special" version-resources that might better have been spent sorting out the compressibility issues, or perhaps simplifying the cockpit. IIRC, only 3 -322s were ever delivered to the Brits-who didn't want them, and refused to quickly test or seriously consider them. Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.
> 
> The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.



Considering "the Brits" had ordered 667 P-38s (with the French) compared the USAAC's order at that time of 66 P-38s, it would seem to make logical sense for Lockheed to concentrate on the British/French specification of P-38.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Considering "the Brits" had ordered 667 P-38s (with the French) compared the USAAC's order at that time of 66 P-38s, it would seem to make logical sense for Lockheed to concentrate on the British/French specification of P-38.



Looks like us Brits saved the day as the Japs attacked the US and suddenly there's 667 extra usable fighters available. Same with Airacobra.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.
> 
> The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.



Several things going on here, 
1, the French were in on the initial order. How much influence they had I don't know but it points to the timing. They were looking for the fastest possible delivery. A good airplane in 9 months to year, not the best airplane 2-3 years in the future. Nobody (except the US?) really knew how bad the turbos really were but they were still experimental. 
Lockheed had just pulled off the near impossible and delivered Hudson's well ahead of schedule. However the crash of the XP-38 in Feb 1940 meant that little testing had been done and no YP-38s were flying when the French/British placed their initial orders. British hada rethink and the bulk of over 600 P-38s (after the first 143) would have turbos, this was before the first YP-38 flew. 
2, XP-38





Used Allisons with the same reduction gear as the early P-40s, not the reduction of the later planes. 

3, The Mustang used the Allison -39 engine like the P-40D/E and not the -33 engine like the early P-40s. The -39 doesn't become a production engine until midway through 1941. Not much difference in altitude performance but a bit lower than around 13,000ft. Later versions (after Dec? 1941) were much stronger engines and would tolerate over boosting better. 

The British lack of interest in the P-38/P-322 might also be explained by their experience with the P-39 and early P-40s. Not exactly stellar. 

None of the British aircraft were actually "canceled", the contracts were taken over by the US Army and the serial numbers of the british aircraft can be traced to the American aircraft. 
From Joe Baugher's web site "Twenty-eight other British-ordered aircraft were completed as P-38F-13-LO for the USAAF, 121 as P-38F-15-LO, 174 as P-38G-13-LO, and 200 as P-38G-15-LO. " other sources may differ a bit or change the numbers to include some recon variants?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Combat ready for where exactly? I don't think I'd rate my chances of survival highly in a duel between a P-38F/G against a Bf 109F/G. I'd much prefer a Spitfire IX on the Channel Front.



Only problem is, by the time the Spit IX was available, there was not that much combat on the "channel front"-especially for a day fighter. The Spit's severely lacking range meant it was barely able to make it past the channel and unable to take the fight to the Germans, really, much after the BOB. The Spit was an outstanding "point defense fighter" (intercepter), with great rate of climb, maneuverability, and respectable speed-probably the best fighter of the war in that role. But the lack of range meant it was incapable of a great many missions...much after the BOB. In N. Africa it was left to a relative handful of P-38s to intercept and disrupt the German supply lines (operating well behind the front lines)-because it was the only bird with the range to do so.

A lot is made (legitimately) of the time to sort out the issues of the '38 at high altitude, first encountered in ~October '43, and pretty well resolved with the J-25-LO in IIRC March-April '44. "Fixes" included the dual generators, better cockpit heat, better gun heating, the dive recovery flaps, boosted ailerons (granted the compressibility limitations were never truly resolved without a wing redesign). Just how long did it take to correct the deficiencies encountered in other aircraft? Take the Spit for example-just how long did it take to address the range limitations and make it into a suitable long-range escort fighter (a need identified in what, 1940?)? How long did it take just to develop a carb that would tolerate negative Gs? We had hundreds of '47s in England in late '42 and early '43-that lacked the range to do the job. It took what, 2 years, just to develop drop tank systems capable of getting it even as far as Berlin (mid-late '44 IIRC). And just when did the N model come out? Also, how long did it take to get the 4-blade paddle prop on them to give them acceptable ROC? Even the Mustang took time to develop, identify the limitations of the single-stage supercharged Allison and redesign and re-engine it and finally get it in service as a LR escort in December '43.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 16, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> The Brits cancelled all orders for the -322 before the first ones were delivered. Needless to say-that put a major wrench in the gears of production emphasis. Sadly-Lockheed wasted engineering and production resources on this castrated aircraft-at a time when they COULD have been building combat capable, turbocharged ones. They wasted the engineering resources to make this "special" version-resources that might better have been spent sorting out the compressibility issues, or perhaps simplifying the cockpit. IIRC, only 3 -322s were ever delivered to the Brits-who didn't want them, and refused to quickly test or seriously consider them. Who could blame them-after their specifications and demands crippled the aircraft, it lost the advantages it had over other aircraft of the day. Without the turbos-it was no more capable than say a Mustang I or P-40 at altitude.
> 
> The bright spot I guess is that the British order for several hundred aircraft did at least "prime the pump" of Lockheed's manufacturing facility-and even the castrated Lightnings provided a basis to upgrade to a combat-capable aircraft-or trainer.


Bright spot was the cash advance that came with the French/British order, a lifesaver for some of the smaller airplane manufacturers. Got them through the lean times before the money started flowing in '41-'42.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 16, 2019)

By the time the P-38J and P-47D became truly capable in mid '44 they were being moved from escort to ground attack. Great use of the turbocharger attacking trucks and trains at 5000'.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Only problem is, by the time the Spit IX was available, there was nearly no combat on the "channel front". The Spit's severely lacking range meant it was barely able to make it past the channel and unable to take the fight to the Germans, really, much after the BOB. The Spit was an outstanding "point defense fighter" (intercepter), with great rate of climb, maneuverability, and respectable speed-probably the best fighter of the war in that role. But the lack of range meant it was incapable of a great many missions...much after the BOB. In N. Africa it was left to a relative handful of P-38s to intercept and disrupt the German supply lines (operating well behind the front lines)-because it was the only bird with the range to do so.
> 
> A lot is made of the time to sort out the issues of the '38 at high altitude, first encountered in ~October '43, and pretty well resolved with the J-25-LO in IIRC March-April '44. "Fixes" included the dual generators, better cockpit heat, better gun heating, the dive recovery flaps, boosted ailerons (granted the compressibility limitations were never truly resolved without a wing redesign). Just how long did it take to correct the deficiencies encountered in other aircraft? Take the Spit for example-just how long did it take to address the range limitations and make it into a suitable long-range escort fighter (a need identified in what, 1940?)? We had hundreds of '47s in England in late '42 and early '43-that lacked the range to do the job. It took what, 2 years, just to develop drop tank systems capable of getting it even as far as Berlin (mid-late '44 IIRC). And just when did the N model come out? Also, how long did it take to get the 4-blade paddle prop on them to give them acceptable ROC? Even the Mustang took time to develop, identify the limitations of the single-stage supercharged Allison and redesign and re-engine it and finally get it in service as a LR escort in December '43.


Tell that to the 70 Beaufighter aces, the bombed civilians, the civilians in Dieppe, maybe even the RAF and the Luftwaffe.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Tell that to the 70 Beaufighter aces, the bombed civilians, the civilians in Dieppe, maybe even the RAF and the Luftwaffe.



The Mk IX wasn't introduced until June '42. You have a point-it did make it to the coast of France (Dieppe)-but not much beyond-and with a limited combat duration. Imagine what could have been done with an actual long-range fighter in their hands at that time.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> The Mk IX wasn't introduced until June '42. You have a point-it did make it to the coast of France (Dieppe)-but not much beyond-and with a limited combat duration. Imagine what could have been done with an actual long-range fighter in their hands at that time.


You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.



In another thread you say the 90 gallon tank is a problem, no maneuvers. Here you advocate it


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> In another thread you say the 90 gallon tank is a problem, no maneuvers. Here you advocate it


You obviously missed my witty phrase 'before you get bounced and shot down'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You don't know your history. Use of 90 gal ferry tanks could be used as drop tanks on Mk IX, so combat radius now 175 miles. Spitfire IX's could get to South coast of Brittany before being bounced and shot down.



Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 16, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.



ETA:

"You obviously missed my witty phrase 'before you get bounced and shot down'. "

We were typing at the same time-wondered if that was what you meant


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Ferry tanks aren't necessarily combat-capable drop tanks. Were they pressurized tanks suitable for use above 20,000 ft? Even so-a 175 mile combat radius is far less than what was needed for an escort mission-the '38 was equipped with dual 165 gallon drop tanks in early-mid '42 (and if I recall 310 gallon tanks were also approved for ferry use by mid '42-and the '38 flew combat with them in the SWPA). It had a combat radius of well over 500 miles with the twin 165s.



You risked your life using those 90 gal tanks, better to use the 45 gal ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You risked your life using those 90 gal tanks, better to use the 45 gal ones.


Better still, 60 gal tanks meant for the P-40.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 16, 2019)

Obviously

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Better still, 60 gal tanks meant for the P-40.


Which were not self sealing, nor were any drop tanks used on US fighters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Aug 16, 2019)

Standard fit on the Mk.IX was the 45 gallon 'slipper' tank, and later, the larger 'cigar-shaped' tank, the capacity of which I can't remember at the moment, without checking my references.
Both were used on 'sweeps', and jettisoned once over the Continental coast.


----------



## Glider (Aug 17, 2019)

The production changes to the Spit IX which included the rear fuselage tank were as follows:-
a) The original 85 Gallon tank was replaced by a 96 Gallon tank
b) A rear fuselage tank was fitted, this was a 72 gallon tank on Spits with the 'traditional' cockpit and a 62 gallon tank on new production aircraft with a cut down rear fuselage
c) Clipped wing was introduced in early 1945 as Spitfires with a full bomb load and the increased fuel tanks sometimes suffered skin wrinkling when pulling out of dive bombing attacks. Clipping the wing effectively added 10% to the strength of the wing and clipping wing at that time, had nothing to do with trying to increase the roll rate.
d) Metal elevators and a slight repositioning of the Gyro gun sight were also needed to allow for the extra fuel.
e) The extra range required an extra oxygen bottle 

The Official Still Air range of a Spit IX cut back cockpit carrying a 90 gallon DT was 1,420 miles. The paper recognises that this isn't an operational range stating that for base planning purposes 75% of the still air range is used which in this case gives an operational range of just over 1,000 miles. The paper also states that each mission will have it's own factors which is of course correct and a point often forgotten in these debates.

The paper is attached and I think you can just read it.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 17, 2019)

Re the use of 90 gallon Drop Tanks on operations. The problem wasn't the use of the tanks, the problem in Italy was that they were running out of tanks to use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2019)

Glider said:


> . The paper also states that* each mission will have it's own factors which is of course correct and a point often forgotten in these debates.*


 100%

Consider weather factors and performance degradation due to operational factors (repairs). Many here will utilize flight test and flight manual data as gospel but in the real world those numbers sometimes don't pan out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

Glider said:


> The production changes to the Spit IX which included the rear fuselage tank were as follows:-
> a) The original 85 Gallon tank was replaced by a 96 Gallon tank
> b) A rear fuselage tank was fitted, this was a 72 gallon tank on Spits with the 'traditional' cockpit and a 62 gallon tank on new production aircraft with a cut down rear fuselage
> c) Clipped wing was introduced in early 1945 as Spitfires with a full bomb load and the increased fuel tanks sometimes suffered skin wrinkling when pulling out of dive bombing attacks. Clipping the wing effectively added 10% to the strength of the wing and clipping wing at that time, had nothing to do with trying to increase the roll rate.
> ...


On a Seafire III, combat radius was 100 miles on internal fuel of 85 gals and 185 with a 60 gal drop tank.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2019)

The problem with Spitfires flying around with 72 gallons (86.5 US gallons) or 62 gallons (74.5 US gallons) in the rear fuselage is that they couldn't fight very well with that load.
Much like P-51s had stability problems with a full 85 gallon tank and it was prefered (if possible) to burn some of the fuel out of the P-51s rear tank before combat was joined.

Some planes may have had only one tank fitted?






From Spitfire performance.

Post war the US (different standards of air safety or airworthiness) continued to use the rear tanks although with some restrictions. The British stopped just about completely using the rear tanks in the Spitfires.

It is one thing to fly a plane 1500 miles, it is another thing to perform violent maneuvers in an aircraft that is carrying about double the amount of fuel it was designed for and that extra fuel in a poor place in regards to the center of gravity. 

Perhaps somebody with the manuals for the Spitfire fitted with these tanks can tell us what the manual says, In peace time the Seafire 46 with a 32 gallon tank in the rear fuselage (and under wing tanks in addition to the belly drop tank) was always supposed to the rear tank first regardless of whatever combination of external tanks was carried. Warm up and take off done on the lower main (with the upper draining into it) until a safe height was reached (2,000ft is in the manual but is crossed out). while the extra 32 gallons does extend the range ti doesn't do much for the internal fuel if the belly drop tank has to be dropped early

Please note the Seafire 45 with a Griffon 61 engine and a 5 bladed Rotol propeller did not get the rear fuselage tank but the Seafire 46 with a Griffon 87 using a 6 blade counter rotating propeller did. The reduction gear and propshaft for the Griffon 87 added about 100lbs to the weight of the Griffon engine weight of the counter-rotating propeller was ????
The MK 46 did get a larger tail.

Edit, the pilots notes for the MK IX, XI and XVI from Sept 1946 says that acrobatics are prohibited when carrying any external stores except the 30 gallon blister tank and when carrying more than 30 gallons in the rear fuselage tanks, _and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks are carrying any fuel _(italics are in the manual) 

Later it says that acrobatics or combat maneuvers are prohibited when the rear tanks have more than 30 gallons if fuel. 

It also says the except in an emergency landings should not be attempted with more than 30 gallons in the rear tanks. If a landing with more than 30 gallons is to be made and a drop tank is being carried the drop tank should be jettisoned. 

Sorry, but it looks like that while the Spitfire could have been improved the possibility of converting it to a really long ranged fighter was going to take a lot more work than some people want to believe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2019)

As you correctly state post was standards are different from wartime standards and this was common practice in a number of airforces. To include the rear tanks in the standard build and to order hundreds of tanks for retrofitting into current operational Spitfires shows (to me anyway) that this extra risk had been accepted.

I do not doubt that pilots were instructed to use these tanks in a certain order, that's common practice no doubt today where drop tanks are normally identified as being the first to be emptied. Besides if you are going to fly approx. 1,000 miles there is plenty of time to use whatever tank first that you desire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2019)

Glider said:


> I do not doubt that pilots were instructed to use these tanks in a certain order, that's common practice no doubt today where drop tanks are normally identified as being the first to be emptied. Besides if you are going to fly approx. 1,000 miles *there is plenty of time to use whatever tank first that you desire*.




If all you want to do is fly 1000 miles you are right, but if you want to fly 400-450 miles _fight and return home _things get a bit more difficult. 

assuming you are getting near the 400 mile mark of the 500 mile radius (1000 mile mission and numbers are for illustrating the point, not real numbers) and enemy aircraft show up to attack your fighters or the bombers you are escorting. Most fighters have to jettison all external tanks in order to engage in combat (a few Spitfires using 30 gal tanks and Japanese fighters excepted) leaving them with only internal fuel to fight for 10-20 minutes with and then the flight home. Combat can burn fuel 2-3 times faster than even a fast cruise (Spit V using 15lbs boost could burn fuel 5 times faster than most economical). Using up 25% of your internal fuel to get the CG (and gross weight) of the aircraft in the right place for effective combat may leave you short of fuel after the external tank/s are punched off even if you had a surplus of fuel to make the flight if combat had not been joined. 

That is the whole trouble with most of these schemes to turn the Spitfire into a long range fighter, there is no doubt whatsoever that you could stuff enough fuel somewhere into a Spitfire to make very long flights. The Problem is getting enough fuel into the plane while still maintaining combat maneuverability and not depending on external tanks for the return leg. 

Please note that several American fighters sometimes suggested for 8th air force escorts have a similar problem. They don't have enough internal fuel to fight over central/eastern germany and make it home regardless of how much fuel they can hold in drop tanks or how far they can fly with the drop tanks attached. 

BTW you are quite correct in pilots using the fuel tanks in a certain order. P-40E and P-40F pilots were instructed to use their internal tanks in a different order in order to maximize the flying characteristics of the P-40 with the heavier Merlin in the nose. P-40E pilots were to drain the rear tank right after the drop tank while P-40F pilots were instructed to use a bit more than 1/2 and then drain every other tank on plane before going back to the rear tank, this level of fuel in the rear tank was the "reserve" on the P-40F to be used when lost and trying to find an airfield or in case of adverse winds or other unplanned circumstance. On the P-40E (and later Allison powered planes) this reserve fuel was held in the most forward tank on the airplane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2019)

Before I go into my reply I am not and never had advocated the Spit in whatever configuration as a substitute for the P51. As far as I am concerned it was the supreme escort fighter of the war barr none.

However the Spit in its final modification clearly had a useful range and one that would have been extremely valuable if the UK had developed it 12 months earlier. Looking at the paper the Spit with the larger front tank has a still air range of about 500 mile equalling approx. an operational range of 375 miles. With internal fuel tanks the numbers are 900 and 675 which is more than sufficient to get you home with room to spare from any likely mission.

The point about the COG is a good one but one that I believe the RAF had considered a risk worth taking during war time, or it wouldn't have been a standard fit. The wings were clipped because of the wing wrinkling with full fuel in both tanks or a full bomb load.

This extra caution when comparing war to peacetime operations is common. IIRC the post war pilots notes for a P51D give a VNE speed approx. 50mph less than the pilots notes from wartime. 

In May 1944 Tempests with 90 gallon DT's were used to escort Halifax's on a daylight raid to the Ruhr. Imagine the increased flexibility this would have given the planners let alone the difference it would have made in the air war against the Japanese if the hundreds of Spitfires had an increased range.

Interestingly the Spit modified in the USA had a bigger problem as it basically relied on two 60 gallon drop tanks to get the range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Aug 26, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 26, 2019)

On factor that chart misses is the number of bombers sent to target.

In mid-to-late 1943 the 8thAF could send 250-300 aircraft on a raid. By early 1944 they could send 1,000+.

Raids in mid-to-late 1943 saw losses of up to 60 aircraft, raids in early 1944 saw losses of up to about 60 aircraft. The loss rate in 1944 was much less than 1943 because the attacking force was 3 times the size, or more.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 26, 2019)

Sorry, but it looks like that while the Spitfire could have been improved the possibility of converting it to a really long ranged fighter was going to take a lot more work than some people want to believe. 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Spitfire_IX_ML-186_Handling.pdf 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_Fuselage_Tank_4-43-23-1.pdf 

Seems to me that the handling problem with the Spit is no worse than the Stang with rear tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Aug 27, 2019)

wuzak said:


> On factor that chart misses is the number of bombers sent to target.
> 
> In mid-to-late 1943 the 8thAF could send 250-300 aircraft on a raid. By early 1944 they could send 1,000+.
> 
> Raids in mid-to-late 1943 saw losses of up to 60 aircraft, raids in early 1944 saw losses of up to about 60 aircraft. The loss rate in 1944 was much less than 1943 because the attacking force was 3 times the size, or more.



Your statement is correct, but..

The point of the graph was to show that the introduction of the P-38 as a long range escort had two main effects.
1. The loss rate dropped to acceptable levels
2. The Luftwaffe had lost the airwar over Europe by March of 44. Months before the P-51 was introduced in numbers equal to the P-38.

The fact that the loss rate further decreased is testament to how badly hurt the Germans were by the introduction of the Lightning as an escort.

The P-38 flew against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer, they were not allowed to stray from close escort, they were outnumbered and mechanical problems were rampant due to various factors. Yet, because the Lightning was such a great plane, the pilots who flew them, were able to overcome those challenges and won.

I would argue that the Lightning was the most strategically significant fighter of WWII, making a vital contribution to winning the battle for the skies of Europe, the Med and the Pacific. It would have done the same for the RAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 27, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Your statement is correct, but..
> 
> The point of the graph was to show that the introduction of the P-38 as a long range escort had two main effects.
> 1. The loss rate dropped to acceptable levels
> 2. The Luftwaffe had lost the airwar over Europe by March of 44. Months before the P-51 was introduced in numbers equal to the P-38.



The point of the introduction of the P-38 also coincides with a slowing of operations by the 8th AF, mainly due to the weather. Depends on whether monthly loss rates is bombers lost per sortie whether that shows up in the stats. Shorter range missions would also benefit from P-47 involvement.

You will also notice that the loss rates increased to higher rates in the few months after the P-38 introduction.




Hairog said:


> I would argue that the Lightning was the most strategically significant fighter of WWII, making a vital contribution to winning the battle for the skies of Europe, the Med and the Pacific. It would have done the same for the RAF.



I'm not sure the P-38 could have done a lot for the RAF in 1942/43. It wasn't as long ranged as its late 1943/1944 versions and had other issues. And I doubt it would have been available in sufficient numbers to provide protection for daylight bombing, given that the USAAF needed them as well

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 27, 2019)

The Lightning was a plane plagued with problems. 
Forced into a combat environment ill equipped.
Not going to get past the huge logistics problems.
Their presence did help but it was costly and time consuming to get them in the air.
Plus pilots suffering badly with no poor functioning heaters. 
The crafty understated mechanics found a way to keep them in the air to earn a credible combat record.

The Mustang was a far more reliable aircraft, far less costly to deploy. 
Took less training time to certify a make a competent combat pilot. 
Most all became successful and survived the war. 

Once the problems were sorted out the Lightning took its fair share of targets.
But then again required a lot more training, logistics and maintenance to keep them flying.
In war time you don’t have time for sorting out chronic long term problems. 
But you do it anyway !

After WW2 the Lightning got parked and cut up.
More countries took the fat boy Thunderbolt before the Lightning. 
Heck the P63 was more desirable after WW2.


----------



## Hairog (Aug 28, 2019)

Where are people getting the idea that the Lightning couldn't climb, turn or roll?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Aug 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Lightning was a plane plagued with problems.
> Forced into a combat environment ill equipped.



Well if you will recall the Mustang needed a whole new engine that was not an American design and then there was the problem of their tails coming off. So the P-51 had a lot more problems than most recall. The prototype flew in Oct. 1940, in 1942 it was rejected by the RAF and didn't equal the Lightning in escort duty until May of 1944. That's a long time to work out the bugs and get it to the frontline. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe was being decisively defeated and their best pilots being shot down by the undertrained pilots flying the P-38 and P-47. 



> Not going to get past the huge logistics problems.



I suggest that the logistics problems in the Med and Pacific were multiple times what they were in Britain. Imagine trying to fly out of a jungle island thousands of miles away from the closest flush toilet or how about from a sand dune in Africa. They managed in both of those theatres, so I believe they would have in Europe as well. 



> Their presence did help but it was costly and time consuming to get them in the air.



It more than helped. Their introduction saved the American daylight bombing effort. They were available and should have been used much earlier and would have saved many a bomber crew. It was a huge failure by the "Bomber will always get through" mentality of the US Army Air Corps. 

Another failure was keeping them tied to the bombers in close escort. If they would have been let loose like the P-47 and P-51 from close escort earlier you would have seen some real carnage at Luftwaffe airfields. 

As for stats, in Europe an enemy plane destroyed on the ground counted as a kill. In the Pacific it didn't. Many a German plane was caught on the ground after 1944. 



> The Mustang was a far more reliable aircraft, far less costly to deploy.
> Took less training time to certify a make a competent combat pilot.



People seem to forget about the cost of training a pilot. How many more pilots were lost due to their one engine being damaged? How many P-38 pilots were saved by having that second engine? Not to mention the planes themselves. How many twin engine P-38s flew again after having their engine repaired. thus saving the cost of building another plane transporting it to the front and having to train another pilot?

How many excellent pilots were lost? Bong came home on one engine I believe 3 times during his career. 

Then you have to take into account the cost of building or retrofitting factories to build the Mustang compared to increasing the build rate of the Lightning. Add in the cost of R&R, retraining flight instructors and mechanics, retooling machine tools, switching to manufacturing a new tire design , retrofitting the tail so it didn't fall off, switching engines, etc. I don't think the P-51 was such a bargain when you include all the overhead that went into getting it into combat. The phrase "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Your statement is correct, but..
> 
> The point of the graph was to show that the introduction of the P-38 as a long range escort had two main effects.
> 1. The loss rate dropped to acceptable levels
> ...



P-38's (55th FG) flew the first escort missions about 6 weeks before P-51's first escort mission (354th FG, 9th AF). By the end of December '43 the 20th FG begins flying escort missions with P-38's. 
During 'Big Week' late February '44 there are more or less equal numbers of P-38's and 8th & 9th AF P-51's escorting the bombers. Early March there are regularly more P-51's than P-38's flying escort missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Well if you will recall the Mustang needed a whole new engine that was not an American design and then there was the problem of their tails coming off. So the P-51 had a lot more problems than most recall. The prototype flew in Oct. 1940, in 1942 it was rejected by the RAF and didn't equal the Lightning in escort duty until May of 1944. That's a long time to work out the bugs and get it to the frontline. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe was being decisively defeated and their best pilots being shot down by the undertrained pilots flying the P-38 and P-47.



Before the Mustang's first flight there was a contract in place for Packard to build Merlins.

The RAF didn't reject the Mustang I or II. They bought 300+ Mk Is and were to get 150 more under Lend-Lease, but some of these were kept by the USAAF.

It was after initial testing that the suggestion to install the Merlin 61 in the Mustang was made. Had North American not been given the go ahead to develop the P-51B, or Packard production didn't allow it, there was a plan to ship the airframes to Britain and fit the Merlin in a conversion facility.

Production of the P-51/P-51A and Mustang I/IA was delayed, IIRC, by slow delivery of the V-1710 to NAA.

And there were delays to the P-51B program due to the initial slow production of V-1650-3s (Merlin 63).

North American were given approval to convert two P-51As to the Merlin as the XP-78 in July 1942. First flight was in November 1942. The first production P-51B flew in May 1943.




Hairog said:


> It more than helped. Their introduction saved the American daylight bombing effort. They were available and should have been used much earlier and would have saved many a bomber crew. It was a huge failure by the "Bomber will always get through" mentality of the US Army Air Corps.



Earlier P-38s were much less capable, especially in range.




Hairog said:


> Then you have to take into account the cost of building or retrofitting factories to build the Mustang compared to increasing the build rate of the Lightning. Add in the cost of R&R, retraining flight instructors and mechanics, retooling machine tools, switching to manufacturing a new tire design , retrofitting the tail so it didn't fall off, switching engines, etc. I don't think the P-51 was such a bargain when you include all the overhead that went into getting it into combat. The phrase "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.



Since the P-51 cost half as much as the P-38 it would suggest that the cost to build plus the overheads (which is included in the customer cost) was half as much as the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Where are people getting the idea that the Lightning couldn't climb, turn or roll?
> 
> View attachment 550286



Well, until the P-38J-25-LO the P-38 didn't have boosted ailerons. So, until sometime in 1944 (?) the roll rate was 39 degrees per second. Not exactly flash.

The other aspect of roll is inertia. From what I understand from America's Hundred Thousand, two engines offset from the roll axis caused the initial roll to be sluggish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 28, 2019)

The RAF simply doesn't need the Lightning in Europe in 1942 or any other date, and although it would've been useful for the RAAF in the Pacific from 1942 that would've required the entire P-38F, Lightning II contact, being allocated to the RAAF, preferably being preceded by the Lightning I for training purposes. Now that would have helped the RAAF immensely, but did they have the necessary number of pilots?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Well if you will recall the Mustang needed a whole new engine that was not an American design and then there was the problem of their tails coming off. So the P-51 had a lot more problems than most recall. The prototype flew in Oct. 1940, in 1942 it was rejected by the RAF and didn't equal the Lightning in escort duty until May of 1944. That's a long time to work out the bugs and get it to the frontline. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe was being decisively defeated and their best pilots being shot down by the undertrained pilots flying the P-38 and P-47.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where do you get your information?
The P-51 Mustang was a well sorted out Fighter and had few problems right from the start.
It was a flexible platform able to accept Merlin's and Allison s.
What problems that did arise were quickly sorted out and not chronic like the Lightning.
As for engines the Allison was damn reliable however the Turbo was problematic in Combat.

The Brits never used the Lightning.
Yet loved the early Mustang and used them until the end of the war.
It was the best Medium to Low aircraft they had, especially P-51 A.
This is also all well documented

The Lightning prototype was rushed into production.
The Air Frame was complex and not designed for production.
You will read that in every history book about the plane.
First one crashed and took time to build another.

The Turbo was problematic until 1945.
The British gas with its high aromatics caused tuning fits.
American Gas and British gas at high altitudes caused the Lead to precipitate out blowing up the engine on boost.
The Fuels were fine for the supercharged engines but not the Turbocharged engines.

PTO it did fine because of the warmer Pacific temperatures.
However lost a lot of combat challenges to Japanese Aces.
Even both Top Lightning Aces were shot down by Japanese Aces.
They even struggled against the Axis aircraft.

Lightnings did not save the daylight Bombing effort.
That would be the Mustang....PERIOD !

As for how many lives were saved by having two engines.
Answer your own damn question..how many ??
Not many came home from combat on one engine.
In fact it would have been highly dangerous to lose an engine on a twin engine plane.
The asymmetric forces would cause the plane to lurch toward the good engine and spin out of control.
This is where a lot of Pilot training came in to be able to fly on one engine.

Now do it in a combat environment.
Lose an engine and correct the abrupt swing you still had zero maneuverability.
P 38 was a useful plane but in combat SA it was seen first.
It was not as agile, could not dive, did not have many distinctive flight characteristics to out fight any plane.
P 38 were a tough, time consuming planes to repair, just like the P-47.

By 1945 most of the flight and pilot issues were resolved.
That is great but much of the war had moved on too.

In the MTO, PTO and CBI its speed was more helpful and had less issues tuning for the climate.
This Reliability made the Lightning more successful.

However it still suffered from not being able to dive away with its mach limit issues.
Level Flight were faster than the Ki-43 and Zeke. They could stay with a Lightning in a Dive.
K-44, Ki-61, Ki-84, N1K1 were more competitive opponents and also took a good score of Lightnings.
Oh the Lightnings shot the hell out of the single and multi engine bombers but not the fighters.

The Mustang was actively in used in every TO from 1940 to 1945.
The most prolific was the P40 that served successfully in every TO.
In fact on the MTO pilots preferred the P40 over the P38.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Where do you get your information? The Mustang was actively in used in every TO from 1940 to 1945.



The Mustang entered service in May '42.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 28, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The Mustang entered service in May '42.





Dan Fahey said:


> Where do you get your information?
> The P-51 Mustang was a well sorted out Fighter and had few problems right from the start.
> It was a flexible platform able to accept Merlin's and Allison s.
> What problems that did arise were quickly sorted out and not chronic like the Lightning.
> ...



The Lightning was a very advanced design for its day, so none of us should be surprised that it took so much time to fix all its faults and shortcomings. The Mustang evolved from a general purpose fighter which the RAF thought best suited to armed recon, to a long range escort fighter, which too had shortcomings until late 1944. I can't remember whether it was the wings folding or the tail breaking though, and until that got fixed, my money would be on the Lightning in the Pacific. 

Getting back to the subject in hand, I'd have kept not only the Lightning but also the Airacobra for the RAAF & RNZAF in the Pacific, rather than cancelling the contracts.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 28, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Lightning was a very advanced design for its day, so none of us should be surprised that it took so much time to fix all its faults and shortcomings. The Mustang evolved from a general purpose fighter which the RAF thought best suited to armed recon, to a long range escort fighter, which too had shortcomings until late 1944. I can't remember whether it was the wings folding or the tail breaking though, and until that got fixed, my money would be on the Lightning in the Pacific.
> 
> Getting back to the subject in hand, I'd have kept not only the Lightning but also the Airacobra for the RAAF & RNZAF in the Pacific, rather than cancelling the contracts.


Mustang did not have the chronic and long term problems the Lightning had. 
Mixture of pilot comfort, airframe performance and repair and engine and turbo tuning.
Both planes were available in 1940...
The Mustang was an advanced design too.
It was successful right from the beginning but the Lightning took 4 years.

Instead of dealing with reliability issues the Brits experimented on the Mustang how to make it faster and more effective. 
What made the Lighting successful when it was working was its range.
Which hampered the Spitfire and Airacobra for the Allies. 
Russia liked the P39 because it was rugged and reliable and suited their fighting profile. 
The Lightning was a competent enough fighter. 
Just not as good or versatile as the Mustang.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Both planes were available in 1940....



Again, the first Mustangs arrived in England on Oct. 24, 1942, far from being available in 1940


----------



## wuzak (Aug 28, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Again, the first Mustangs arrived in England on Oct. 24, 1942, far from being available in 1940



Neither was any P-38 worth a damn.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Again, the first Mustangs arrived in England on Oct. 24, 1942, far from being available in 1940



British Aircraft Purchasing Commission signed its first contract for the North American NA-73 on 24 April 1940.
Meaning the Mustang was reviewed, accepted and available in 1940.

The prototype NA-73X rolled out in September 1940
102 days after the order had been placed and first flew on 26 October 1940
Arrival of the first batch to the UK was October 1941
First Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942.
26 Squadron RAF was the first to get the Mustang.

10 May 1942, Mustangs first combat mission was over France, near Berck-sur-Mer
27 July 1942, 16 RAF Mustangs took their first long-range reconnaissance mission over Germany

All well before October 1942

Contrast this with the Lightning that was started in 1937/38
The first Lightning to see active service was the F-4 version
P-38E in which the guns were replaced by four K17 cameras.
Joined the 8th Photographic Squadron in Australia on 4 April 1942.
Three F-4s were operated by the Royal Australian Air Force in this theater for a short period beginning in September 1942.

First US use was 29 May 1942, 25 P-38s began operating in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska
Lost many of the planes due to the harsh weather.
Was not until April 1943 where they started flying escort in ETO
Then deployed in the MTO and PTO did their career really start.

In contrast Mustangs were already fighting combat missions in Early Mid 1941

WIKI

D


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 29, 2019)

You might want to read this....P-51 History - MustangsMustangs.com "After 78,000 man hours and 102 days later, on Sep 9 1940, the prototype, NA-73X, rolled out of the hangar - without an engine"


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You might want to read this....P-51 History - MustangsMustangs.com "After 78,000 man hours and 102 days later, on Sep 9 1940, the prototype, NA-73X, rolled out of the hangar - without an engine"




Already have that and a couple dozen other books on the Mustang back to 1965


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 29, 2019)

I have 52 books


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I have 52 books



Mine are bigger than yours

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Kevin J (Aug 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> British Aircraft Purchasing Commission signed its first contract for the North American NA-73 on 24 April 1940.
> Meaning the Mustang was reviewed, accepted and available in 1940.
> 
> The prototype NA-73X rolled out in September 1940
> ...


You were doing really well until your very last sentence which would apply to the Tomahawk.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> 10 May 1942, Mustangs first combat mission was over France, near Berck-sur-Mer
> 27 July 1942, 16 RAF Mustangs took their first long-range reconnaissance mission over Germany



And, of course, Mustangs were involved in the Dippe Raid in August 1942.




Dan Fahey said:


> In contrast Mustangs were already fighting combat missions in Early Mid 1941



I believe you meant to say early/mid 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> *Arrival of the first batch to the UK was October 1941*
> First Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942.
> 26 Squadron RAF was the first to get the Mustang.
> 
> *In contrast Mustangs were already fighting combat missions in Early Mid 1941*


----------



## pbehn (Aug 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The Mustang entered service in May '42.


You mean placing a purchase order and getting the planes in service takes more than a week? Well how long then? A whole MONTH?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Was not until April 1943 where they started flying escort in ETO
> Then deployed in the MTO and PTO did their career really start.
> 
> In contrast Mustangs were already fighting combat missions in Early Mid 1941



last taken care of first. By your own post the first combat mission for the Mustang was 

"_*10 May 1942*, Mustangs* first* combat mission was over France, near __Berck-sur-Mer_ "

So which is it. Early to mid 1941 or May of 1942? 

and 


Dan Fahey said:


> Arrival of the first batch to the UK was October 1941


that first batch consisted of one airplane, serial no AG346. Four more arrive Nov 11th 1941, 


for the P-38 they actually did fly one escort mission in Oct of 1942 before being withdrawn for use in operation Torch, by the end of Nov/beginning of Dec there were three fighter groups opertaiting P-38s in NA. There were no escort missions flown by P-38s in the ETO in April of 1943. 

Your time line needs a bit of work.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 29, 2019)

He has "a couple dozen other books on the Mustang back to 1965" so he's good

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

wuzak said:


> And, of course, Mustangs were involved in the Dippe Raid in August 1942.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> He has "a couple dozen other books on the Mustang back to 1965" so he's good


Yup..got some original printings of several other books back to 1954...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> last taken care of first. By your own post the first combat mission for the Mustang was
> 
> "_*10 May 1942*, Mustangs* first* combat mission was over France, near __Berck-sur-Mer_ "
> 
> ...


Can only post what I see..


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 29, 2019)

Curious which of your many books told you that "The Mustang was actively in used in every TO from 1940 to 1945." Your quote


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2019)

I've got books that go back to 1941, if not before, not that I rely on some of them.







Mr. Cooke was the associate editor of "Flying Aces Magazine"






While some of the pictures in the book are interesting, some of the text needs a healthy dose of scepticism no matter how much it may favor any planes that are my favorites. 

Most people, for instance, don't know that the XP-51 used an Allison engine of 960hp at 12,000ft that gave it a maximum speed of more than 400mph

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I've got books that go back to 1941, if not before, not that I rely on some of them.
> 
> View attachment 550458
> 
> ...



Looks like that last cover slipped past the censor. Now remind me, who was fighting who in WW2?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 30, 2019)

For a given amount of resources, you could actually have fewer than half as many P-38s available for combat as P-51s. How? Assume you have 32 aircraft engines. You can field 16 P-38s or 32 P-51s. But, let's say 5 engines need service today. You will have 27 P-51s availablle. Best case scenario, you lose 3 P-38s. (2 engines out on 2 and one engine out on one), but the worst case scenario - one engine out on 5 planes - leaves you with only 11 combat ready planes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Aug 30, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> British Aircraft Purchasing Commission signed its first contract for the North American NA-73 on 24 April 1940.
> The prototype NA-73X rolled out in September 1940
> 102 days after the order had been placed and first flew on 26 October 1940


There are 137 days between 24 April 1940 and 9 September 1940.
The 102 days that is usually quoted is from the Contract date of 29 May 1940.

The contract on 24 April was an internal NAA general order NA-73.
The letter of intent signed by the BPC was on 11 April 1940.

Either way, it was a stunning engineering achievement to go from a basic three view and a few rough calculations to a flying aeroplane in 6 months.

Dates from "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51", Ray Wagner, 2000.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 30, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> There are 137 days between 24 April 1940 and 9 September 1940.
> The 102 days that is usually quoted is from the Contract date of 29 May 1940.
> 
> The contract on 24 April was an internal NAA general order NA-73.
> ...



PERFECT Point.... and flew in Combat within 2 years

The P-38 started in 1938.
Too many features were new and unsorted.

The British rejected them because of the Tail Flutter.
Still a chronic issues with the later more powerful models which impacted aiming.
Similar issue with the Mig-15 in Korea. 
Below that flutter speed were deadly !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Aug 30, 2019)

Dan 

In your post 141 it was stated that both top P-38 pilots were shot down by Japanese Aces.......

Out of curiosity, when was Dick Bong shot down? I also understand that to this day there is still some doubt about Tom McGuire's demise, whether he stalled and crashed, or was hit in his final dogfight.

Thanks

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 31, 2019)

eagledad said:


> Dan
> 
> In your post 141 it was stated that both top P-38 pilots were shot down by Japanese Aces.......
> 
> ...


Bong lost his life testing a P80 shooting Star.
McGuire and his wing man both went down. Both were aces. They were shot down because of over confidence in a big contested fight that day. Most books said he had his tanks on and turned to shoot and his Plane stalled. I know that the top P47 Pilot Johnson met a similar fate target fixated on a bomber and a Ki43 nailed him. The long elevator was an Achilles Heal in the Lightning. Hit that and break it in two or hit the tail jamming them up the Lightning was done for. You do not fight low and slow against a Ki43 which also had a excellent climb rate and energy retention.

Since we won the war the books say what they want. I suspect from other writings suggesting he was hit focused on shooing down a plane. Then again we do not have a accurate version from Japanese side. What was interesting in WW2 Fighter to fighter combat was nearly one to one in the Pacific through out most of the war. Another book confirming this was the battles around New Guinea P39 vs Zero. Both shooting down 15 though the P39 lost 44 in combat during that period in 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Aug 31, 2019)

Dan,

More information on McGuire's demise maybe found here:
Pacific Wrecks

I believe that Johnson was a typo, as Neel Kearby was the top scoring P-47 pilot in the Pacific. Your description of his end is similar to the information found here:
Pacific Wrecks

FYI

Eagledad

Edited Corrected link to Kearby

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2019)

Hairog said:


> Where are people getting the idea that the Lightning couldn't climb, turn or roll?
> 
> View attachment 550286





wuzak said:


> Well, until the P-38J-25-LO the P-38 didn't have boosted ailerons. So, until sometime in 1944 (?) the roll rate was 39 degrees per second. Not exactly flash.
> 
> The other aspect of roll is inertia. From what I understand from America's Hundred Thousand, two engines offset from the roll axis caused the initial roll to be sluggish.



I just checked in America's Hundred Thousand and found that P-38s with the dive brakes didn't reach combat units until June 1944. Some of these were kits retrofitted to existing P-38Js, but it also means it is the earliest the P-38J-25 could have made it to the front, as they had the brakes fitted from factory, and were the first ones with the boosted ailerons.

So, until June 1944 the P-38 rolled at the astounding peak rate of 39 degrees per second.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Aug 31, 2019)

> In your post 141 it was stated that both top P-38 pilots were shot down by Japanese Aces.......



The top Burma P-38 ace Walter Duke also was shot down and killed in June '44 when he went back into a low level fight to help another P-38 pilot in trouble. Similar situation to McGuire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 2, 2019)

eagledad said:


> Dan,
> 
> More information on McGuire's demise maybe found here:
> Pacific Wrecks
> ...



Thank you...blew that one .... you are correct on Neal Kerby....damn iPad keeps changing my spelling of Kerby

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> There are 137 days between 24 April 1940 and 9 September 1940.
> The 102 days that is usually quoted is from the Contract date of 29 May 1940.
> 
> The contract on 24 April was an internal NAA general order NA-73.
> ...



It is a little more complicated plus a little artistic stretching of definitions.
First, Kindelberger gave Schmued carte blanche to assemble his Design group, followed with Rice picking the Project manager and manufacturing team to a.) take the design emerging from Schmued's group. b.) oversee the assembly of NA-73X in the Experimental hanger, c.) start work on the manufacturing tooling, work stations and processes to build repetitive versions of NA-73.

The last of the design drawings from Schmued's group emerged between July 30th and August 1st, although the Experimental Department began fabricating the empennage and fuselage in early July (in parallel). To quote Schmued (from Wagner and his personal manuscript) - "We scheduled completion of engineering to be completed and delivered to Experimental Department in 100 days. It took 102 days to complete it."

_There was Never a mandate to complete and fly a prototype within 120 days. Noted in the LOI and subsequent Contract) was the stipulation that first airplane was to flown by January 1st, 1941. Had a 120 day stipulation been agreed, NAA had to deliver X73 on or about August 19th 1940 based on earliest start of April 12th. Based on April 24th start, then 120 days would have been ~ August 21st. Based on April 24, 102 days would be August 3rd. _ *Based on my research April 21 is more likely date of start work by Schmued on X-73 and complete the 1620 Specification for NA-73. The 1620 Spec was dated April 24th.*

The actual REAL rat in the woodpile was Allison, which agreed to a 120 day delivery for the 1710-39 and got caught like a doe in the headlights and The AAC came through in October with one of their own delivered/unused spare engines (40 day delay from Allison commit). This could be construed as the first of the many 'capital offenses' committed by Allison in their relationship with NAA.

The point to be made is that there is a.) no precise date Defined as 'Project Start' for Schmued's Design team, nor a precise date for 'Design completed and Delivered to Experimental for Fabrication, and b.) no precise date for Start Fabrication in the Experimental Department. What is 'known' is the the end of July'ish was delivery of Design package, September 9 was the roll out date of X-73 (with dummy engine), and c.) memories absent the project record details are 'suspect'.

Summary - the first PRODUCTION X-73 flew in April 1941. The first ALLISON supplied V-1710 replacing the AAC loaner was early 1941. (at that time more major issues found between as delivered and as designed surfaced - (requiring changes to engine mount and firewall). The first Prototype flew on October 26 - literally only two weeks after receiving engine to complete installation, make changes to engine mounts, wire the instrument panel and complete control linkages, test the engine/instruments and controls, taxi tests etc.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> PERFECT Point.... and flew in Combat within 2 years
> 
> The P-38 started in 1938.
> Too many features were new and unsorted.
> ...


Really??? And what book was that from???


Dan Fahey said:


> Still a chronic issues with the later more powerful models which impacted aiming.


Was that from a Dick Bong pilot report?



Dan Fahey said:


> Similar issue with the Mig-15 in Korea.
> Below that flutter speed were deadly !


Now I really have to call the BS detector.

The MiG-15 "snaked" at certain speeds and lost aileron authority at slower speeds, and had violent mach tuck tendency at high mach numbers, but this is for another discussion.

I guess you been hitting that vast library you have, hope none of the pages were stuck together!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Really??? And what book was that from???
> 
> Was that from a Dick Bong pilot report?
> 
> ...


Wow flyboy...for all your experience about the P38 you know the plane had flutter issues from the start.

Especially approaching .68 Mach in their dive tests. Pilots died because of the the tail failing and breaking.
In fact there were two issues and hard to separate, Compressibility and Tail Flutter.
The Tail Flittering got solved first after a lot of Wind-tunnel Testing. 
Adding Filets around the Wing, Cockpit and Engine Nacelles.
They never solved the compressibility issue. 
The British rejected the early Lightings because of this issue...there was a big huge legal fight about it!
Then Pearl Harbor happened and US wanted the planes. 

If you cut the P38 in half and made two planes. 
You may have had a way to prolong Compressibility.
But you had 4 large protrusions...two engines one in each fuselage, another fuselage between the engines and a big Tail.
That is a lot to push through the air...best the Lightning got was around .74 Mach...
No matter what the Lockheed Engineers did with that configuration.
it was not going any faster and considering there were other flight performance issues to deal with.

What made the Lighting effective was its watering can guns and cannon all in the nose. 
It had enough performance to win a fair share of battles with a competent pilot.
One on one could not dive fast enough safely and separate enough distant in an emergency. 
This is key in any combat situation air, ground or water. 

The Lightning was just not as versatile as the single engine planes. 
Which were just as fast more maneuverable and did not have as many cranky issues. 
It was a unique plane but got to remember design and testing started in 1937-1938.
And war had not started in Ernest yet.
Yet the P36 already was already fighting in China, later in France. 
Even the later model F7F Tigercat had similar flutter and compressibility issues. 

After the war the P38 was completely retired from US and other air forces.
Bottom line, It was not economical to keep around.

On a contract in Marietta Ga was interviewing Designers for Lockheed in 1977/78/79
Some of those guys worked on the C122 Connie and used the wind tunnel tests from the P38. 
They used a similar tail configuration off of the Lightning.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

drgondog said:


> It is a little more complicated plus a little artistic stretching of definitions.
> First, Kindelberger gave Schmued carte blanche to assemble his Design group, followed with Rice picking the Project manager and manufacturing team to a.) take the design emerging from Schmued's group. b.) oversee the assembly of NA-73X in the Experimental hanger, c.) start work on the manufacturing tooling, work stations and processes to build repetitive versions of NA-73.
> 
> The last of the design drawings from Schmued's group emerged between July 30th and August 1st, although the Experimental Department began fabricating the empennage and fuselage in early July (in parallel). To quote Schmued (from Wagner and his personal manuscript) - "We scheduled completion of engineering to be completed and delivered to Experimental Department in 100 days. It took 102 days to complete it."
> ...



There had to be a battle going on between Alison and US Army.
Do know there was a money issue at one one time. 
Did it have anything to do with the development of the two stage Supercharger..?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Really??? And what book was that from???
> 
> Was that from a Dick Bong pilot report?
> 
> ...



So in between those speeds the MiG 15 was dangerous...correct..?
Yes another discussion.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> They never solved the compressibility issue. The British rejected the early Lightings because of this issue.


The compressibility issue was never solved?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow flyboy...for all your experience about the P38 you know the plane had flutter issues from the start.
> 
> Especially approaching .68 Mach in their dive tests. Pilots died because of the the tail failing and breaking.
> In fact there were two issues and hard to separate, Compressibility and Tail Flutter.
> ...


 You're confusing the flutter and compressibility issues. The flutter occured because of compressibility. The AAF mandated balance weights on the elevator. They never really worked according to Kelly Johnson. This has been well documented in numerous books by Brodie and Ethel



Dan Fahey said:


> The British rejected the early Lightings because of this issue...there was a big huge legal fight about it!
> Then Pearl Harbor happened and US wanted the planes.


 The British bought castrated lightnings, and were going to reject them anyway. In essence it kept the production line opened long enough to bridge several AAF purchases and ensure program cashflow. Again this was mentioned by Brodie and Cadin in their books.


Dan Fahey said:


> If you cut the P38 in half and made two planes.


No, you had a fuselage boom and a wing!!!!


Dan Fahey said:


> You may have had a way to prolong Compressibility.
> But you had 4 large protrusions...two engines one in each fuselage, another fuselage between the engines and a big Tail.
> That is a lot to push through the air...best the Lightning got was around .74 Mach...
> No matter what the Lockheed Engineers did with that configuration.
> it was not going any faster and considering there were other flight performance issues to deal with.


Lockheed engineers were the first in dealing with a phenomena that many knew was there but never encountered, the P-38 was the first aircraft to deal with this and later the P-47 had similar issues


Dan Fahey said:


> What made the Lighting effective was its watering can guns and cannon all in the nose.
> It had enough performance to win a fair share of battles with a competent pilot.
> One on one could not dive fast enough safely and separate enough distant in an emergency.
> This is key in any combat situation air, ground or water.


Please provide some reference for that because that sounds like a figment of your imagination.


Dan Fahey said:


> The Lightning was just not as versatile as the single engine planes.


100% BS - look at the various variants and roles it served, that was one of the things that made it one of the best combat aircraft of the war!!!!



Dan Fahey said:


> After the war the P38 was completely retired from US and other air forces.
> Bottom line, It was not economical to keep around.


 Agree there to a point. There were several post war operators.


Dan Fahey said:


> On a contract in Marietta Ga was interviewing Designers for Lockheed in 1977/78/79
> Some of those guys worked on the C122 Connie and used the wind tunnel tests from the P38.
> They used a similar tail configuration off of the Lightning.


I'll throw the BS flag up there!!! I worked at Lockheed in Burbank from 1980-1990 and knew many engineers that were around during the war years. There might have been some transplants that went to Georgia but "GELAC" was mainly made up of local folks hired during the 1950. Wind tunnel testing for the Connie was done in California and the tail configuration had absolutely nothing to do with the P-38, it was adopted to keep the tail height at a minimum so the aircraft could fit in many of the standardized hangars of the day!!!! BTW most if not all the archived data was at the library located on Valhala Drive next to plant A1 at that time. So tell us Dan, who were these folks????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> So in between those speeds the MiG 15 was dangerous...correct..?
> Yes another discussion.


No - you just had to know how to fly it!!


----------



## wuzak (Sep 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The British bought castrated lightnings, and were going to reject them anyway. In essence it kept the production line opened long enough to bridge several AAF purchases and ensure program cashflow. Again this was mentioned by Brodie and Cadin in their books.



Yes, the Lightning I did not have the performance required, or expected, of it.

But the RAF did not cancel the complete order, instead the bulk of the order was to be completed as the Lightning II, which was fitted with handed engines and turbochargers.

Then, of course, Pearl Harbor happened and the USAAF took over the order.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> If you cut the P38 in half and made two planes.
> You may have had a way to prolong Compressibility.
> But you had 4 large protrusions...two engines one in each fuselage, another fuselage between the engines and a big Tail.
> That is a lot to push through the air...best the Lightning got was around .74 Mach...
> ...



The compressibility issue as due to the thickness and profile of the wing. 

If the Lockheed engineers had the time, money and manpower to revise the wing they could have improved its performance greatly. But, of course, winning the war took priority and production of existing types could not be interrupted for lengthy periods.




Dan Fahey said:


> What made the Lighting effective was its watering can guns and cannon all in the nose.
> It had enough performance to win a fair share of battles with a competent pilot.
> One on one could not dive fast enough safely and separate enough distant in an emergency.
> This is key in any combat situation air, ground or water.



I'm of the opinion that acceleration in the dive was more important than the ultimate diving speed. 

The P-47 was regarded as a good diver, but the Spitfire not so much. The Spitfire's ultimate limiting mach number was greater than the P-47's, but it did not accelerate nearly as well. 

The P-38 accelerated quickly in a dive, causing it to quickly get to the speed where compressibility was a problem. So limits were put on the P-38 for diving, which were increased when dive brakes were fitted.

Still, I believe the acceleration the P-38 had in a dive would be handy in trying to evade the enemy.




Dan Fahey said:


> The Lightning was just not as versatile as the single engine planes.
> Which were just as fast more maneuverable and did not have as many cranky issues.
> It was a unique plane but got to remember design and testing started in 1937-1938.
> And war had not started in Ernest yet.
> ...



I may have a different definition of "versatile" than you do.

Not many single engine fighters of WW2 could be a fighter one day and carry 2 x 2,000lb bombs the next.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The compressibility issue was never solved?



No.

Just had work-arounds to mitigate the problems it caused.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're confusing the flutter and compressibility issues. The flutter occured because of compressibility. The AAF mandated balance weights on the elevator. They never really worked according to Kelly Johnson. This has been well documented in numerous books by Brodie and Ethel
> 
> The British bought castrated lightnings, and were going to reject them anyway. In essence it kept the production line opened long enough to bridge several AAF purchases and ensure program cashflow. Again this was mentioned by Brodie and Cadin in their books.
> 
> ...




Not providing references to satiate your responses.
Most what I posted is correct.
If you have have more information just provide it without your snarky responses.

I am here to fill the holes from people who know more than I do.
Sorting the Propaganda and misinformation information published over the decades
A lot of aviation history does not make sense.
There are so many books which one has the Correct Information.
You had writers that Caiden that really slathered misinformation.
Compared to a Dan Ford and Cookie Sewell that get into the weeds what really happened.
Then there are books like Robert Shaw's Advanced Combat Maneuvering.

As for my experience..
Supported programs at McDonnell Douglas Florida, Page Aircraft building Saudi luxury aircraft,
Gulfstream Aircraft in Savannah, Modification Centers in Clemson SC, Piper in Daytona, Cessna in Tampa.
Martin Marietta in Orlando, mostly missile programs and Aircraft programs in Baltimore
Lockheed Martin C-130 C-140 Stretch, C5A CADAM development and C17 RFP.

Aircraft Simulation industry that was predominantly throughout central Florida.
Supported Hamilton Standard and Sikorsky West Palm Beach including Star Wars program. Lot of NASTRAN Development.
Was on site when they blew a hole in a 10 foot slab of steel.
Earlier won Stock Eliminator points meet at Moroso (1983)

Supported teams on AWACs (with the Circle Bar W company ) in Linthicum MD, COMSAT in Germantown MD, Balloon Communication program in Columbia MD.
Wave Propagation Communications with US Army our of Marietta Ga using Barium Clouds to propagate a AM wave experimenting for Combat condition in Atlanta.
When in South Florida formed a Corporate Soccer League and Played Goalie.
Mororola, ABB/Westinghouse, Racal Milgo, Rodime, Modcomp, Siemens, IBM, Florida Power and Light.
Personally tackled the President of Siemens Engineering stopping an attack in the goal area.
I have interviewed and personally hired more than 3000 engineers and know their stories.

Remember being in Huntsville where I met and talked to Verner Von Braun and many of his associate engineers in Meetings.
Worked on dozens military programs with Sperry, Burroughs, Univac, CSC, Computer Products.
Including clandestine communication programs for Radio Free Europe and fascinating algorithm development for Ship Fire Control.
Got deep into the deposition, etching and manufacture of Microprocessors and the Tooling that went with it.
Then there was Marine Industry with US Coast Guard, CIA - Ft Lauderdale, DEA who caught the CIA in Ft Lauderdale running Drugs.
Oh and that Airplane i saw take from from CIA airways that got shot down over Nicaragua .
Chris Craft Military Patrol Boats for US Cost Guard and Navy that all of a suddenly ended up in the hands of the Israelis.
Had a good little bit of weapons systems and rack and stack development on US Destroyers and Frigates.
Even did manual Circuit Board design.

Then supported Nuke Power Plants at Grand Gulf, St Lucie, Turkey Point, Crystal River, Taft, Belafonte, TVA Chattanooga, Union Carbide Oak Ridge.
Even visited 3 Mile Island after the clean up.

My Grandfather worked for the National Geological Survey
He was the Scientist that selected Los Alamos for the Manhattan project.
I met many of his scientist friends as a kid at family events.
My Dad worked for NRL. Flew out of Bolling AFB then Andrew and later Pensacola.
Navy Connie called Sundowner that almost got shot down doing research around Japan.
Spent a lot of time with the Crew on weekends while Dad worked inside the Connie.
Witnessed an F-86 take off and crash in the river.

I have about 50 years in Engineering and IT... Started in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
Have 50 years in Civilian and Combat Martial Arts and a good bit of weapons training.
Morning warm up is 50 sit ups, 75 Push ups and 50 BW Jump Squats and alternate days 70 Burpees.
The evening Martial Arts or the Gym getting ready to Ref Soccer for the Fall.
MSI Soccer Ref of the year 2017.

Can still chase down U19 men's teams on the Pitch and do that for three games a day.
Use to Ref as many at 12 games a weekend but cut that down.
Not too bad for a person 68 years old !

I own a IT and Engineering Business for more than 25 years.
Employed as many as 160 employees.
Now we are deep into Cyber Security and not just IT but Industry wide.
Hoping to employ 25 Engineers for an AFB reconstruction program in Florida
Aircraft history is only one area that information is sought.

What I give you comes from MY personal Experience and Study.
I will never have all the answers.
BUT I do not need to justify what I have learned.

Just want to know how a problem was solved.
What were the issues that had to be pushed through.
Who were the players.

No ego ... what was the result !

Got it !

D


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The compressibility issue was never solved?



Not on the Lightning.
Engineers just prevented it from getting out of the high speed dive.
Otherwise it would nose over and break apart.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2019)

What's a C-122 Connie? I could only find C-121 Constellation


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not providing references to satiate your responses.
> Most what I posted is correct.
> If you have have more information just provide it without your snarky responses.
> 
> ...



You're right about one thing. Just because it's the official narrative doesn't mean it's true.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The compressibility issue as due to the thickness and profile of the wing.
> 
> If the Lockheed engineers had the time, money and manpower to revise the wing they could have improved its performance greatly. But, of course, winning the war took priority and production of existing types could not be interrupted for lengthy periods.
> 
> ...



Agree about the limited time and manpower..a war was going on and you fixed what you can and send the plane off to fight.
As for the quickness in dive..possible if the Lightning could roll quick enough in time, Boosted Ailerons helped.
Then again you are diving and moving quickly because the Enemy plane already has an energy advantage on you.
Or cut power and climb to force the Enemy to hopefully miss you and fly by.
All about creating a safe distance.

As for adding bombs good point but not going too far hauling 4000 lbs of bombs.
Then the plane becomes a vulnerable bomber.

Just was not as versatile as the Mustang or it would have had a life after WW2.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2019)

Not really seeing the similarity between the P-38 and C-122 Connie tail section


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> What's a C-122 Connie? I could only find C-121 Constellation



Hey you got me..!
Born with Dyslexic Fingers !


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not on the Lightning.
> Engineers just prevented it from getting out of the high speed dive.
> Otherwise it would nose over and break apart.



??? Engineers Enabled (not prevented) recovery from Compressibility dive by designing and installing the dive flap at 30% chord to move CP further aft.

Absent the dive flap, the CMac did contribute pitch down but there was enough control authority to prevent 'nose over' and 'breaking apart'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2019)

That's what I thought hence my question


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Agree about the limited time and manpower..a war was going on and you fixed what you can and send the plane off to fight.
> 
> As for adding bombs good point but not going too far hauling 4000 lbs of bombs.
> Then the plane becomes a vulnerable bomber.
> ...



Post war decision to drop the P-38J/L from the active USAF inventory was economic. P-51D/K/H half the cost to operate and maintain. P-51H was superior Interceptor, P-82 better very long range escort and night fighter and Fighter bomber - if necessary.

But I don't understand your definition of 'versatile'? 

P-38 - Long Range escort, Close Air Support, Interceptor, long range/high speed recon, night fighter, capable of horizontal formation bombing with accompanying Droop Snoot modified P-38, Air ambulance.

I guess I forgot all the additional roles the Mustang suitably achieved in comparison. What did I miss?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2019)

That air ambulance version was spooky


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2019)

The P-38 was a bit weird, It was an advanced, complex airplane compared to many other fighters. It was also just a bit earlier in timing to many of planes people compare it to.

Production totals at the end of 1943.

fighter.................planes built in 1943...............total number of planes of type.

P-38.............................2497.......................................4184
P-47.............................4428.......................................4946
Mustang....................1710.......................................2482
F4U..............................2293.......................................2466
F6F...............................2547.......................................2557

for all of 1942 and much of 1943 the P-38 was the only advanced fighter (better than a P-39/P-40/F4F) available in large numbers (it could take several months to get from the factory door to a combat airfield). This is one reason the P-38K went nowhere. The demand for P-38s was too high to take the hit to production for the change over. 

The P-38 established a reputation for long range early, in part because of the 165 US gallon drop tanks, with the demonstrated ability to fly the Atlantic (in ferry not combat condition) it had longer legs than any other allied fighter in 1942. Combat radius on a B-17 escort mission would have been much less but they were sent off to Operation Torch before any track record could be established in the ETO (for good or bad) in 1942. 
They had built over 900 P-38s and had thousands more on order before anybody even started cutting metal on a 2 stage Merlin powered P-51 let alone fly one. 

building two single engine fighters for every P-38 sounds intriguing until you figure that you need twice the number of flight instruments, twice the number of radios, more guns (unless you are happy with fighters with three .50 cal guns) and most importantly, twice the number of pilots. If you can't train the P-38 pilots properly to handle the twin engine planes can you train hundreds more pilots in the same time period (or thousands more going into 1944?) to handle a small single engine turbo fighter?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Post war decision to drop the P-38J/L from the active USAF inventory was economic. P-51D/K/H half the cost to operate and maintain. P-51H was superior Interceptor, P-82 better very long range escort and night fighter and Fighter bomber - if necessary.
> 
> But I don't understand your definition of 'versatile'?
> 
> ...




And the P-38 was doing some of those missions (recon) up to a year before the P-47 showed up in combat. After being shuffled off to bomber missions it did do a few notable missions, that other fighters would have been hard pressed to do, If the missions were actually worthwhile is another subject but flying 600 miles to bomb Polesti in the summer of 1944 was a mission few other fighters could even attempt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Not providing references to satiate your responses.
> Most what I posted is correct.
> If you have have more information just provide it without your snarky responses.



No pal, my references has been posted throughout this forum, you have continued to post half -truths and nonsense and been continually called on it



Dan Fahey said:


> As for my experience..
> Supported programs at McDonnell Douglas Florida, Page Aircraft building Saudi luxury aircraft,
> Gulfstream Aircraft in Savannah, Modification Centers in Clemson SC, Piper in Daytona, Cessna in Tampa.
> Martin Marietta in Orlando, mostly missile programs and Aircraft programs in Baltimore
> ...


Dan - I'm not going to entertain the legend you think you are. You post a lot of nonsense and it really annoys many of our members. You've been called on it - govern yourself accordingly.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Hey you got me..!
> Born with Dyslexic Fingers !


Among other things....


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> There had to be a battle going on between Alison and US Army.
> Do know there was a money issue at one one time.
> Did it have anything to do with the development of the two stage Supercharger..?



No, not really and no. The primary issue is that AAC, then AAF Materiel Command made many changes that Allison could not keep up with. Additionally, the Army was not interested in a two speed/two stage engine - and while Allison was interested they took the lazy approach of a 'bolt on' auxiliary second stage.

Allison's approach to NAA was 'here it is - love it'. The GM Board got involved when Kindelberger bolted and contacted the BPC and Air Ministry for permission to talk to R-R and initially derailed the projected installation of the Merlin XX - but by that time Echols was seated on the War Production Board and would have vetoed the allocation from the P-40F to the Mustang I.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 4, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Not really seeing the similarity between the P-38 and C-122 Connie tail section
> 
> View attachment 551036​


Yes, if you look closely there are subtle differences

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow flyboy...for all your experience about the P38 you know the plane had flutter issues from the start.
> 
> Especially approaching .68 Mach in their dive tests. Pilots died because of the the tail failing and breaking.
> 
> ...



*Your last comment has been addressed but you seem mired in generalities.*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Not really seeing the similarity between the P-38 and C-122 Connie tail section
> 
> View attachment 551036​


Vertical Stabilizer profile used was the near identical as on P-38.
It was low drag and effective compared to late B24 / PB4Y / B32 Dominator large version.
Helped with the streamlining and cross wind landing.
Also know from talking to aircraft restoration guys and pilots at Titusville, FL.

The Rudder authority worked well on the P-38 which had very good climb and energy retention.
Working throttles a good pilot could perform a quick Hammerhead Reversal.
There was an article in one of the Warbird's Magazines a while back.

Found this description on the P38 from the Jeff Ethell article at Flight Journal

Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. 
In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. 

As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. 
At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow. 
I pulled the power back on the inside (right) engine, pushed the power up on the outside (left) engine, shoved right rudder pedal, and the Lightning smoothly swapped ends. 

Not only did it turn on a dime, but it actually rotated around its vertical axis as if spinning on a pole running through the top of the canopy and out the bottom of the cockpit. 
The maneuver was absolutely comfortable with no heavy G-loading. 
As the nose came through 180 degrees, I threw the flap lever back to full up, evened the throttles and headed downhill going through 300mph in less time than it takes to tell it. 
The 109 would have been a sitting duck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 5, 2019)

drgondog said:


> *Your last comment has been addressed but you seem mired in generalities.*


So my comment is inaccurate?
Do you have information to add?
I am listening !!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Vertical Stabilizer profile used was the near identical as on P-38.
> It was low drag and effective compared to late B24 / PB4Y / B32 Dominator large version.
> Helped with the streamlining and cross wind landing.
> Also know from talking to aircraft restoration guys and pilots at Titusville, FL.
> ...



"The Constellation's wing design was close to that of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, differing mostly in size. *The triple tail kept the aircraft's height low enough to fit in existing hangars"*

*Beyond the Horizons: The Lockheed Story. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998 Pages 135-137*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> So my comment is inaccurate?
> Do you have information to add?
> I am listening !!



the Lightning was just not as versatile as the single engine planes.

*Make your case. Start with contemporary US fighters such as P-39, P-40 and P-47 - then compare to Bf 109, A6M, Fw 190, Spit, Hurricane, Yak 3, Yak 9, Laag 7?*

Which were just as fast more maneuverable and did not have as many cranky issues.
*Again - cite your specifics*

It was a unique plane but got to remember design and testing started in 1937-1938.
And war had not started in Ernest yet.
Yet the P36 already was already fighting in China, later in France.
Even the later model F7F Tigercat had similar flutter and compressibility issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*BE SPECIFIC if you believe the P-38 had fewer mission roles than a Laag &, Bf 109, Fw 190, P-40 etc.? You may recall that the P-38 was the first US fighter with unique high and low altitude perfomance - better than all the single engine contemporaries including the Spit and Bf 109 contemporaries.*

*P-40, Hurricane and Spit 1 through V and Bf 109E and P-39 and P-40 were more manueverable at low to middle speed - but were nowhere to be seen above 20K and all were slower with much lower operational ceilings and range.*


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Vertical Stabilizer profile used was the near identical as on P-38.
> It was low drag and effective compared to late B24 / PB4Y / B32 Dominator large version.
> Helped with the streamlining and cross wind landing.
> Also know from talking to aircraft restoration guys and pilots at Titusville, FL.
> ...



*BullS___t. For the reasons enumerated above. Playing games with differential thrust, in an airplane with a very low relative roll rate in low to medium speed killed a lot of P-38 pilots.*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> It was a unique plane but got to remember design and testing started in 1937-1938.
> And war had not started in Ernest yet.
> Yet the P36 already was already fighting in China, later in France.



I think you better check your books again. 

The P-36 never fought in China, the Hawk 75M did.





Please note the fixed landing gear and hiding under the cowl, an 875hp Wright Cyclone engine. ALL P-36s used P & W Twin Wasp engines (although some Hawk 75As did use later Cyclones) .
No Hawk 75 of any type fought in China in 1937 although one was demonstrated there and presented ot Claire Chennault. The Production planes did not arrive until late 1938 and apparently no Chinese Hawk 75s saw combat in 1938 and darn few saw combat in 1939 aside from being destroyed on the ground. While 3 Chinese squadrons received Hawk 75s there are few reports of combat with them. At least one squadron re-equipping with biplanes as their Hawk 75s became unserviceable for several reasons. 

The French did use theirs to good effect from 1939 on but it was obvious to most people that the Hawk 75 (and the 81/87) were not in the same catagory as the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I think you better check your books again.
> 
> The P-36 never fought in China, the Hawk 75M did.
> View attachment 551296
> ...


They were still P36’s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2019)

No, the American Army ordered a specific version of the Hawk 75 series (or two versions in quantity [P-36A and P-36C] plus some experimentals) while other air forces ordered other versions of the series. Only the planes delivered to the US Army were P-36s. 
The US Army shipped no P-36s to China, lend lease or otherwise. No US Army P-36s were diverted to China (unlike the US Navy allowing F2A Buffaloes to be diverted to Finland or the British allowing 100 Tomahawks (not P-40s) to be diverted to China for the Flying Tigers.)

I was in error when I said that no P-36s used the Wright Cyclone engine. A small batch (about 30?) of Hawk 75A-8s ordered by Norway used them. These planes were not delivered at the time Norway was taken by the Germans and were taken over by the Americans as P-36Gs, some were used in Canada to train Norwegian pilots at a training base, a few may have been used in the United states for training? Most or all of the survivors of this duty were given to Peru in 1943.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> They were still P36’s.



Dust off your old books..

_"The prototype of the *Hawk 75H*—a simplified version with *fixed landing gear*, like the 75O—was eventually sold to the Chinese Nationalist government who presented it to Claire L. Chennault for personal use. China also received two similar demonstrators, the *Hawk 75Q*. They also used a number of simplified *Hawk 75M*s against the Japanese. The *Hawk 75A-5* was built under license in China, but production was later moved to India, and these aircraft were absorbed into the RAF as the Mohawk IV."_

*Engine, armament and cockpit configuration were quite different from the P-36.*

_"Hawk 75A-4Last production batch for France, Hawk 75A-2 with Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone radial with 1,200 hp: 285 built, 81 delivered to France; others to Great Britain as Mohawk IVHawk 75A-5Similar to Hawk 75A-4. Built under license in China (production was later moved to India)*, *absorbed into RAF as Mohawk IV"_

P-36 - Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp, 1,050 hp


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2019)

I would note that there were over 1000 Hawk 75s built of which only 210-213 were ordered as P-36s.
All of the "extra" Hawk 75s were ordered by foreign countries and paid for by them (or their successors, British taking over some outstanding contracts) and NO Hawk 75s were "ordered" under lend-lease although a few countries, like Peru, got used Hawk 75s/P-36s under the lend-lease or military aid programs. 

Calling these Hawk 75s by the "name" P-36 is simplification of what happened and only leads to confusion even if it seems like a quick and easy way to identify a series of planes using an American reference. 

Curtiss had quite an export business going with the earlier Hawk biplane fighters, both fixed and retractable landing gear, and would have been looking to continue that business model with whatever new fighter design they came up with as they (and the world) moved to monoplanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Calling these Hawk 75s by the "name" P-36 is simplification of what happened and only leads to confusion even if it seems like a quick and easy way to identify a series of planes using an American reference.



It also shows ones' lack of knowledge with regards to the topic!


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 7, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It also shows ones' lack of knowledge with regards to the topic!
> 
> View attachment 551429

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 7, 2019)

This is a fun thread!


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 7, 2019)

I'm going to start a new thread based on this.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 10, 2019)

drgondog said:


> No, not really and no. The primary issue is that AAC, then AAF Materiel Command made many changes that Allison could not keep up with. Additionally, the Army was not interested in a two speed/two stage engine - and while Allison was interested they took the lazy approach of a 'bolt on' auxiliary second stage.
> 
> Allison's approach to NAA was 'here it is - love it'. The GM Board got involved when Kindelberger bolted and contacted the BPC and Air Ministry for permission to talk to R-R and initially derailed the projected installation of the Merlin XX - but by that time Echols was seated on the War Production Board and would have vetoed the allocation from the P-40F to the Mustang I.


I have yet to see proof that GM was forcing NAA to use the Allison. Most people don’t realize that GM was the controlling shareholder in NAA and could have easily nipped it in the bud. GM also was involved in the production of the Merlin with Buick manufacturing 55,000 engine blocks for Packard. Oldsmobile was becoming involved with the Merlin at the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I have yet to see proof that GM was forcing NAA to use the Allison. Most people don’t realize that GM was the controlling shareholder in NAA and could have easily nipped it in the bud.
> *GM didn't have the gravitas to nip the Army in the bud, particularly since Knudsen ultimately approved the extremely high priority allocation of 1650-3 to NAA in 1943. But even less control over Army decision to back the XP-51B right after the big Board meeting blow up as mentioned below.*
> 
> GM also was involved in the production of the Merlin with Buick manufacturing 55,000 engine blocks for Packard. Oldsmobile was becoming involved with the Merlin at the end of the war.



You don't have access to the documents that I have.

In late 1940 Kindelberger and Ernie Breech escalated the issues of repeated deficient quality of tech support and failure to deliver by Allison - which was jeopardizing the RAF relationship. Kindelberger contacted R-R in March 1941. Kindelberger sought and received details regarding the Merlin XX/Packard 1650-1. He received a voluminous design package from R-R USA in May 1941. The complaints about delivery and service escalated in late 1941 to a tumultuous Board meeting in early 1942. The Board denied funds to enter into an agreement to install them into a NA-83 series airframe.

When the ARMY got in line with proposed Merlin hybrid experiment during the Rolls Royce conversion in May 1942, they basically stuffed the decision down GM throat. GM tried one last time by forcing NAA to study the issues presented by the Allison 2S/auxiliary 2nd stage but it would have forced a complete re-design and major production disruption.

Take what you wish and leave the rest.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 11, 2019)

drgondog said:


> You don't have access to the documents that I have.
> 
> In late 1940 Kindelberger and Ernie Breech escalated the issues of repeated deficient quality of tech support and failure to deliver by Allison - which was jeopardizing the RAF relationship. Kindelberger contacted R-R in March 1941. Kindelberger sought and received details regarding the Merlin XX/Packard 1650-1. He received a voluminous design package from R-R USA in May 1941. The complaints about delivery and service escalated in late 1941 to a tumultuous Board meeting in early 1942. The Board denied funds to enter into an agreement to install them into a NA-83 series airframe.
> 
> ...


Just asking, but the tumultuous board meeting in early 1942 where the board denied funds to install "them", was the "them" Merlins or Allisons? Thanks in advance.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Just asking, but the tumultuous board meeting in early 1942 where the board denied funds to install "them", was the "them" Merlins or Allisons? Thanks in advance.



Merlins - remember that Allisons were already installed.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 11, 2019)

Right, the P-51 opened with Allisons and I have always wondered why it never got a single stage Merlin before it got the two stage Merlin.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Right, the P-51 opened with Allisons and I have always wondered why it never got a single stage Merlin before it got the two stage Merlin.



Rolls-Royce produced performance estimates for both the Merlin XX and Merlin 61 in the Mustang airframe, but only ended up installing the 61, as far as I am aware.

Rolls-Royce also proposed the Griffon 61 for the Mustang, but that would have required a lot of modifications to the airframe.

(This is not the Rolls-Royce Flying Test Bed, which came later and never flew!)


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Right, the P-51 opened with Allisons and I have always wondered why it never got a single stage Merlin before it got the two stage Merlin.



You have to look at the timing of the orders for aircraft and the timing of the engine production by Packard. 
The Original order for Merlins by Packard was for 9000 engines of which the US was to get 1/3. 
Packard did not complete the original order for 9000 single stage engines until the end of Feb 1943. At which time a number of prototypes of the Mustang with 2 stage engines are already flying and 2 stage Merlin powered Mustangs have been ordered in large quantities. 
The window of opportunity for a single stage Merlin powered Mustang would have had to have been in early 1942 to late 1942. 
However the first 620 Mustangs were British, bought and paid for. The next 150 (Mustang IAs ) were paid for by lend lease and they only rolled out the factory starting in July of 1942 which is about the time the idea of mounting a two stage Merlin begin to get around. 
The US is using their share of single stage Merlins in the P-40F at this point. July of 1942 sees Packard hit the 800 engines a month production goal. US is getting around 264 Merlins per month ? US also has no money for fighters which leads to the whole A-36 dive bomber funding trick. 
For most of the first 1/2 of 1942 NA is making about 80 Mustangs a month while Curtiss is building over 300 a month (using both Allisons and Merlins)

Between money, production schedules and what planes/engines were ordered when, the window for any sort of single stage Merlin Mustang was very short. And if started in the 2nd half of 1942 might well have delayed the two stage engine project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You have to look at the timing of the orders for aircraft and the timing of the engine production by Packard.
> The Original order for Merlins by Packard was for 9000 engines of which the US was to get 1/3.
> Packard did not complete the original order for 9000 single stage engines until the end of Feb 1943. At which time a number of prototypes of the Mustang with 2 stage engines are already flying and 2 stage Merlin powered Mustangs have been ordered in large quantities.
> The window of opportunity for a single stage Merlin powered Mustang would have had to have been in early 1942 to late 1942.
> ...


 
I am not in the US at the moment and do not have access to my copy of Rolls Royce and the Merlin, but I believe Rolls Royce was considering installing 20 series Merlins in Mustang airframes. As you note the performance of the 60 series was so superior that the idea was dropped

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 12, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I am not in the US at the moment and do not have access to my copy of Rolls Royce and the Merlin, but I believe Rolls Royce was considering installing 20 series Merlins in Mustang airframes. As you note the performance of the 60 series was so superior that the idea was dropped



If you look in wwiiperformance.org in the Hurricane II section you should find a chart of Hurricane II vs Merlin XX powered Mustang, IIRC.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 12, 2019)

drgondog said:


> You don't have access to the documents that I have.
> 
> In late 1940 Kindelberger and Ernie Breech escalated the issues of repeated deficient quality of tech support and failure to deliver by Allison - which was jeopardizing the RAF relationship. Kindelberger contacted R-R in March 1941. Kindelberger sought and received details regarding the Merlin XX/Packard 1650-1. He received a voluminous design package from R-R USA in May 1941. The complaints about delivery and service escalated in late 1941 to a tumultuous Board meeting in early 1942. The Board denied funds to enter into an agreement to install them into a NA-83 series airframe.
> 
> ...


NAAs board or GMs?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> NAAs board or GMs?



GM - Ernie Breech was Ch NAA and also a GM Board member. He was the one that called a special meeting of the GM Board, at which Kindelberger made his case based on a multitude of Allison 'Design vs Delivered' issues causing multiple re-works on the production line at NAA, Extremely poor communication from Allison Support/Service group to communicate those changes in advance of delivery, and the general poor performance of the Allison at higher altitudes. 

By documented post meeting remarks the meeting was extremely heated and Hal Dupont - CEO of Dupont and GM Board member was dispatched to meet with both NAA exec and design and production execs - and Allison's CEO as well as the GM of the Engine Group. 

The latter fact finding mission coincided with the emergence of the XP-51B and just after Rolls-Royce had made successful and spectacular flights. This was also after Allison had a large backlog scheduled for the P-51A and knew that that order was toast if the AAF remained as excited about the potential (realized) of the P-51B and converted the projected remaining contract of P-51A to the P-51B-1-NA. It is_ alleged_ that GM appealed via back channel to Lt.Gen William Knudsen, Ch of War Production Board and former GM COB - and were 'coldly' rebuffed.

The ultimate focus of the investigation was 'why didn't Allison have the foresight to pursue R-R 12s/1s and 2s/2s engine development' ?

This was also the timeframe when Arnold was sure enough of the success of the mating of the P-51 and Merlin to be 'politically correct enough' to communicate to Roosevelt that the AAF had decided to purchase 2200 (or 2400 - have to look it up) Mustangs.

Obviously this was the timeframe that the animosity between Allison and NAA reached a peak, that remained in play through the XP-82 and XP-51J.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I am not in the US at the moment and do not have access to my copy of Rolls Royce and the Merlin, but I believe Rolls Royce was considering installing 20 series Merlins in Mustang airframes. As you note the performance of the 60 series was so superior that the idea was dropped



NAA was also considering the 1650-1 as noted in my earlier post, and there were still serious positive reasons to go with the 1650-1, namely in Hp to weight and less engineering effort regarding the increased Aftercooling requirements of the 1650-1 vs the Merlin 61 (and 65 which went into the Mustang I conversions). The other issue is that the first 1650-3's experienced bench test deficiencies that in July 1942 - were not easily solvable - pointing to delays to the XP-51B (XP-78 at that time) first flight and subsequent production run. Those issues remained in October 1942, which did in fact delay the XP-51B and also delivery of the 1650-3 from 'scheduled' from February to 'actual' May 1943.

Shaking out initial production release of the 1650-3 combined with the Packard strike in June/July 1943 was the real root cause for the P-51B not beginning ops about the time the 55th FG started combat ops with P-38H in mid October 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 13, 2019)

drgondog said:


> NAA was also considering the 1650-1 as noted in my earlier post, and there were still serious positive reasons to go with the 1650-1, namely in Hp to weight and less engineering effort regarding the increased Aftercooling requirements of the 1650-1 vs the Merlin 61 (and 65 which went into the Mustang I conversions). The other issue is that the first 1650-3's experienced bench test deficiencies that in July 1942 - were not easily solvable - pointing to delays to the XP-51B (XP-78 at that time) first flight and subsequent production run. Those issues remained in October 1942, which did in fact delay the XP-51B and also delivery of the 1650-3 from 'scheduled' from February to 'actual' May 1943.
> 
> Shaking out initial production release of the 1650-3 combined with the Packard strike in June/July 1943 was the real root cause for the P-51B not beginning ops about the time the 55th FG started combat ops with P-38H in mid October 1943.


Can you elaborate on the bench test deficiencies in the -3? 
A strike in wartime? How did that happen?


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 13, 2019)

The World War II and post-war strike wave - Jeremy Brecher


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 13, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The World War II and post-war strike wave - Jeremy Brecher



The Human Machinery of War | eHISTORY
Some strikes are for good reason.
There was huge resentment at the profits made by the captains of industry in the Great War while workers died in the mines and factories


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Can you elaborate on the bench test deficiencies in the -3?
> A strike in wartime? How did that happen?


 The primary issues for the first series of Bench tests at Wright Field were piston/crankshaft failures at 12 pounds/54" boost as well as inadequate carburetion for projected 61".

on June 3, 1943 Packard management promoted three Black works to supervisory positions resulting in an immediate wildcat UAW strike (not sanctioned by UAW) and 25000 walked out. The War Labor Board, supported by UAW ordered them back on the 4th. Most returned but approximately 1500-2000 remained on the picket lines. The On June 6 30 Union organizers were suspended and the strike ended on June 7th.

That said, the strike was estimated to have lost 5-600,000 man hours resulting in a delivery loss of 240 1650-1 and 100 1650-3 engines for June.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 13, 2019)

​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

