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

[drgondog]

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.

 

[michael rauls]

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

 

[drgondog]

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.

Structural failure due to attempts to recover from dive - primarily by boosting elevator forces in attempt to brute force the recovery - not flutter. IIRC the wing filets had already been installed on the P-38D after the wind tunnel tests at NACA.

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.

Compressibility was a two fold issue but the wing was primary and the air flow acceleration between the nacelles and the cockpit exacerbated the development of onset compressibility.

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 Brits complained about the reliability, the lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks, the crappy performance of the Allison w/o superchargers (which they didn't want) and the handling characteristic of the P-38 with same rotation on both engines (their fault)

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.

Under 20K, the P-38 easily dived and accelerated without compressibility issues. It was faster than all the Axis fighters (until 1945) it encountered at all altitudes (save Fw 190 down low). Until the boosted ailerons were introduced into ops in summer 1944, the roll rate of the P-38 was inferior to all US and Axis fighter - ditto turn rate until high altitude performance of the turbo-supercharged engines gave it an advantage (when everything worked).

Best tactic was always enter combat at high speed and maintain energy while fighting in the vertical.

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.

Aside from compressibility in unique situations initiated by high speed dives above 20,000 feet - and zero flutter issues from 1942 forward - make your case.

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.

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

 

[Dan Fahey]

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.

 

[Dan Fahey]

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]

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.

"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

 

[drgondog]

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]

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.

I knew Jeff and his father Irv - who was a squadon CO when my father was Gp CO of the 35th FW at Johnson AFB. Irv got credits for 4 in the air and according to my father was very good stick. AFAIK, nobody got in a 5-7 o'clock position in Irv - ditto my father. Lesson Implied - Irv kept his energy up and avoided turning fights against Fw 190 and Bf109.

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.

A lot of dead pilots misjudged range of a pursuing Bf 109 and Fw 190. Giving a full plan view deflection of a climbing P-38 to a 109 or Fw 190 that could out turn and climb with or out climb and accelerate a P-38E/F/G/H and J was not a good idea.

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.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Dan Fahey]

I think you better check your books again.

The P-36 never fought in China, the Hawk 75M did.
View attachment 551296
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.

They were still P36's.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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 75Ms 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]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

View attachment 551429

 

[jetcal1]

This is a fun thread!

 

[Kevin J]

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

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

 

[drgondog]

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.

 

[P-39 Expert]

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.

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.