A navalised P-38 Lightning?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk said:
A monoplane carrier-borne aircraft were looking as an oddball, until the people really tried it. So did the 2-engined jobs, until tried. Heck, all aircraft were looked upon as oddballs prior ww1, let alone naval A/C.
Click to expand...

Stretching things a wee bit???
The twin engine carrier planes weren't really tried until carriers and carrier decks got much bigger than they were in the late 30s and very early 40s.



Yep, the production of the P-38s only really hit the stride after there was no that much need for them, like in 1944/45.
Click to expand...

same could be said for a number of US aircraft. Like 3130 F4Fs built in 1944 out of 7904 for the entire war. Less said about P-39 and P-40 production in 1944 the better



The proposal was dated as of 1937. Should be tested by 1939 if the Navy wants it?
Click to expand...

Using what for engines? The navy did test the Airabonita : Bell XFL Airabonita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a 1939 version would use the C series engines at best with turbo operation being somewhat problematic?
Service version would happen when using what for engines?


What you can pull off for a one shot, special mission with specially trained crews is not what is acceptable for day in, day out service. Trying to time the take-off for maximum upward pitch of the carrier deck when the plane crosses the bow so you can trade the most altitude for airspeed (sort of like the ski jump flight deck used for harriers) was not a good idea for day in, day out operations in all weathers/climates.
 
Shortround6 said:
Stretching things a wee bit???
The twin engine carrier planes weren't really tried until carriers and carrier decks got much bigger than they were in the late 30s and very early 40s.
Click to expand...

The RN conducted tests of the Sea Mosquito aboard of the 766 ft long HMS Indefatigable. The USN Lex Sara carriers were 888 ft long, Essex was at 872 ft. Hornet was at 825 ft. The HMS Eagle (1946) was 812 ft long.

same could be said for a number of US aircraft. Like 3130 F4Fs built in 1944 out of 7904 for the entire war. Less said about P-39 and P-40 production in 1944 the better
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Obviously, the 1st examples will use the C series. In early 1941, the 1st F series are available.


The take off distance was reduced to ~30% by the 'raiders'.
The 'P-38' pilots will need to cut the distance to ~50% if they don't want to hit the water, that is for overweight condition (19500 lbs - ie. 2 x 300 gals DTs; hopefully no one will try to take off with those from CV?). With 2 x 150 gal DTs, the P-38 weighted 17700 lbs ( for 700+ ft TO distance), and some 1000 lbs less with 2 x 75 gal DTs.

BTW: how much time it took for the carrier-borne A/C to take off? How much feet will the carrier cover during that time?
 
A good carrier could make maybe 33 knots and usually a bit of head wind. Easiest to add this to aircraft speed. Maybe it's just an illusion, but a plane seems to accelerate at a better rate once it gets moving.

I doubt that the B-25s could have taken of n the same distance from a static runway.
 
They couldn't have. They're dropping some too when they go off the end but have the momentum and thrust to overcome that.
 
tomo pauk said:
BiffF15 said:

The P-38 didn't have problems flying on one engine. Fly around until you've used up the fuel and then land.
Click to expand...


Tomo,

On all twins I have flown so far engine out approaches are flown at a lesser flap setting and higher speed (greater stall margin / power reserve). Also fighters, unlike airliners, generally land sooner rather than later (engines inside the plane vice out / less redundancy of systems) with the mentality that the problem will continue to grow. Both of those situations drive getting on the deck sooner rather than later, and the higher trap speed will introduce the need for stronger cables, and or the boat to move faster through the water to generate a lower approach speed for the plane.

Cheers,
Biff
 
In 1943, when the new carriers were ready, the Hellcat was also ready, and the Hellcat was pretty much the perfect aircraft for the time and place. For 1942, the Navy was already making compromises in performance to get as many planes on deck as possible. The F4F-4, with folding wings was slower than the F4F-3, but you could fit half again as many on the ship. The challenge then was to produce the planes and get them on the ship when needed; a task that would have been more difficult with a bigger plane. I might rather have a P-38 than an F4F-4, but most of the time I'd rather have 2 F4F-4s than 1 P-38, and that's the real relevant trade-off.
 
Good point re. 2 folding wing A/C being better than one non-folding. That is also an argument against other fighters that could replace the F4F-4, like the 'hooked' P-40, Spitfire, or Sea Hurricane.
The folding wing P-38 should have span of circa 30 ft, and length of 38 ft. F4U 'folded' was at 17 ft, the F4F-4 at just 14.6 ft, and non folded at 38 ft. Both USN fighters being also shorter than P-38, ~5 and ~10 ft respectively.
The F6F was absent from CV service units for 2/3rds of 1943.


Thanks for the overview, Biff.
The P-38 in engine-out situation will have a fair chance to limp back near the friendly ships or ground units, contrary to a single-engined A/C in same situation.
 
Forget folding wings, installation of a hook etc. The only thing that's going to get a P-38 serving on a US Navy carrier deck was if it had radial engines. Besides, what could the P-38 offer that the F6F and F4U within the time frame did not have that the US Navy needed, apart from two engines, and even then, they were the wrong kind.
 
For the USN, Bell redesigned the P-39 into the Airabointa, that came out as an under-performer and was cancelled because of that - ie. the USN was not strictly against the liquid cooled engines, if the aircraft carrying them were able to perform notably better than usual radial-engined ones.
Against the F4U and F6F, the navalized P-38 can offer earlier timing.
 
I dunno, Tomo, based on what Shortround and the others are saying, can it really? I don't believe that the Airabonita is a good example of the US Navy showing interest in an inline fighter, to be frank. If the navy was to invest in an earlier fighter, wouldn't a purpose built naval aircraft be a better bet, rather than disrupt army contracts to build a derivative of an existing design? Boils down to that typical argument of this kind of what if scenario, doesn't it; go with what you've got or go for an entirely new design. Surely, the time taken in modifying an existing design would/could be as much as starting from scratch.
 
Not a lot earlier.
Not unless you come up with a 2nd production line/manufacturing facility.
Not unless you fix the problems with the early turbo systems.
Putting a wing fold in the middle of leading edge inter-cooler is going to be a real maintenance headache ( or performance killer). Please remember that the P-38H was manufactured in parallel with the P-38J for a number of months becasue Lockheed could NOT get enough of the J type inter-coolers so the idea of 'moving' the inter-coolers into the booms and out of the leading edges needs a bit more thought.

With the US NOT involved in a shooting war development pre Dec 7th seemed to take a lot longer than development post Dec 7th.
You need the Navy version designed, tested, and ready for production when?
P-38E was the first combat capable P-38 with over 2000 changes from the P-38D, First P-38E rolls out of the Factory in Nov 1941.
A few F-4 recon planes show up in Australia in April 1942 but the P-38 fighter doesn't see combat in in squadrons until Aug 1942.

Aug 9th sees P-38s shoot down 2 flying boats in the Alaska area, Aug 22nd sees P-38s show up at Henderson field (in less than squadron strength), Aug 29th sees first attempt at intercept over England.
At the end of 1942/Jan 1943 P-38s are in short supply with units (squadrons, not groups) in the Pacific operating mixed with P-39s. There are about 90 in North Africa and even updated/refurbished P-38Es are being moved to North Africa (the G went into production about 6 months earlier, June of 1942).

You need a few hundred extra P-38s to put any real numbers on carriers. A sobering statistic is " The United States had manufactured about 294,000 aircraft for the war effort. Of that number, 21,583 (7.34%) were lost in the United States in test flights, ferrying, training accidents, etc., and 43,581 were lost en route to the war and in overseas operations."
 
Lockheed was awarded with contract for 667 of future Lightnings for the UK and France in April of 1940. By that time, the USAF ordered only 80 of P-38s. If the USN really wants the 'P-38s' on their decks, and signs the contract for, say, 250 of those in 1938 or 39, they can have the final say about how much, or any Lightnings will be exported. Lockheed can, due to a firm and big (for peace time) order expand their facilities and manpower more promptly than historically. Once the USAF and Europeans make their big orders, the USA can start to look around for second production source.

I don't believe that the Airabonita is a good example of the US Navy showing interest in an inline fighter, to be frank.
Click to expand...

Not sure what to make out of this - anyway we cut it,Bell reworked the P-39 to create the fighter, upon request from USN.


I agree that a purpose-built CV fighter with a V-12 should do better than a quick fix of the ground-based fighter. The USN was probably hoping they would have the Airabointa in service in shorter time, than it would be possible for a brand new design.
 

The Navy, after talks/ sales pitches and negotiations, had issued contracts for the XF4U, XF5F and XFL-1 (Airabonita) by the end of 1938. Bell had completed a full scale mock up by Dec 19/20th 1938. A number of delays and problems crept in, the contract didn't provide enough money to Bell who was trying to develop 3 new fighters at the same time. By Dec 1939 the plane was considerably over weight ( not a surprise as the XP-39 was around 10% overweight) and Allison was months late in delivering the engine, engine doesn't show up until 4 months after the prototype was supposed to fly.
Navy modifications (tail wheel landing gear) required a total redesign of the cooling system (new wheels went were radiators were on the Army Version) and much trouble was encountered getting the new radiator ducts/housing to work properly. Test flying (and modifications) dragged on through 1940 and into 1941. One series of tests used a hook equipped XP-39B which resulted in the conclusion that the XP-39B was not adequately stressed for carrier use which resulted in the Airabonita having a considerably different airframe structure than the XP-39B.

Bell continued to 'pitch' a version of the Airabonita to the Navy that would include tricycle landing gear, folding wings and a two stage engine ( A folding wing XP-39E or P-63) but the Navy didn't bite.

Companies can propose all sorts of things and modifications of existing designs. There is no guarantee what so ever that they will actually work.
 
I don't believe that the Airabonita is a good example of the US Navy showing interest in an inline fighter, to be frank.
Click to expand...

Sorry Tomo, perhaps I should have clarified a bit on this, but SR has beat me to it in the above post.


I can see the reasoning behind that though, just that the existing options available were not the best in terms of timing, as it turns out.
 
Just adding to my response above, since the XF4U was issued a contract at the same time, I think the navy made the right choice and yes, this is based on hindsight, which the navy did not have, granted, but if you take the time factor into consideration, the options available were going to take as long as they did - the technical issues at least, with getting the Corsair aboard carriers (even if they were FAA) at any rate. Modifying an existing design would not necessarily take less time, particularly the P-38.
 
I will give Lucky13 (who started the thread) credit for being openminded towards a twin-engined naval fighter. I don't think that during the war the Navy was open-minded enough about two engined planes, even though they commissioned the XF5F. Eventually they proved that even a medium bomber like the B-25 could not just take off, but also land safely on a carrier with proper preparation. The British Sea Hornet was mentioned. That plane, "essentially" a navalized Mosquito, served on British ships shortly after World War II. Perhaps a naval P-38 would have been useful flying in small numbers from carriers for particularly critical missions. From reading about the F7F program, the Navy could have had that plane in combat before the end of 1944 if it would have been considered to be crucial to do so.
 

At a first guess, the Doolittle raiders took off at a speed below Vmc​. This would not be done from a land base, and would have meant that the result of an engine failure on take-off would have been a crash.
 

Exactly what problem did the USN have with liquid cooled engines? The RN had no issues at all it seems. The P-40 likely would have made a good carrier fighter early in the war, possibly better than the wildcat.
 
Koopernic said:
Exactly what problem did the USN have with liquid cooled engines? The RN had no issues at all it seems. The P-40 likely would have made a good carrier fighter early in the war, possibly better than the wildcat.
Click to expand...

The Navy had become disillusioned with liquid cooled engines back in the 20s. When you are flying long distances over water having one more thing to go wrong ( a liquid cooling system) was not desired. Granted by 1939/40 the liquid cooling systems had gotten better ( but still not perfect). Glycol is also flammable and the Navy used the excuse that they didn't want to store/handle hundreds of gallons of an additional flammable liquid on their carriers.

The P-40 would have made a lousy carrier fighter with around 40% longer take-off distances required, lousy view over the nose and landing speed 15-20% higher than an F4F. Just becasue you can fly P-40s off a carrier deck to a land base doesn't mean you can operate P-40s for weeks on end from a carrier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
12K
Thumpalumpacus
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
934
Snautzer01
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
609
Shortround6
S
M
Train in a PT-19
Replies
3
Views
500
MIflyer
M
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
39K
Think Tanker
Menu
Log in
Register