Alternatives to the historical P-38 Lightning? (1 Viewer)

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

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
13,801
4,332
Apr 3, 2008
...that was a - surprise - two engined twin-boom fighter. So what the folks in the USA in general, and Lockheed in particular might've done different in order to improve on the heavy fighter idea? Looking for improvements in time line, numbers produced, possible performance advantages, etc.
 
For starters:

When the P-38 was developed, it's primary goal was to meet the AAC Circular Proposal X-608. Producibility seemed to take a back seat as no one ever thought that more than 75 units would ever be produced, there were many design changes to make the P-38 an aircraft that can be massed produced.

One of the biggest disfavors done to the program during development was NACA not initially allowing Kelly Johnson to use their wind tunnels at speeds above Mach .74. I know General Arnold had to step in to make this happen but this wasted time and probably some lives.

The P-38K "would have" made a huge difference if it was developed earlier in the program but it wasn't going to replace the P-51 or even the P-47. There were several time lags in incorporating modifications to the P-38 during it's production life, but those delays were due to the government not quickly issuing a contract for those modifications.

A trainer version (and I'm not talking about the "Castrated P-38s) would have helped provided the AAC would have recognized they needed specialized training for twin engine aircraft, especially the "overpowered" P-38.

My last item (for now) was replacing the control yoke with a stick. I heard Johnson speak at a presentation to the Lockheed Management Club during the early 1980s and he said he wanted to put a stick in the P-38 to make it more fighter like, but the AAF did not approve the design change.

The P-38 had to evolve with world events and for the most part, did that evolution well.
 
When the P-38 was developed, it's primary goal was to meet the AAC Circular Proposal X-608. Producibility seemed to take a back seat as no one ever thought that more than 75 units would ever be produced, there were many design changes to make the P-38 an aircraft that can be massed produced.

Do we know how many fighters (per X-608 spec) the AAC was supposed to buy by the time XP-38 won the contract?
 
Do we know how many fighters (per X-608 spec) the AAC was supposed to buy by the time XP-38 won the contract?
AFAIK - one. It was after the XP-38 was built (and destroyed) where the AAF ordered additional aircraft, I think the first buy were for 13 aircraft. After that another 60+ were ordered. Talking to many of the folks who were working at Lockheed during the late 1930s, it seems these initial aircraft were just about hand built.
 
Looking at the competing firms for AAC Circular Proposal X-608, it would appear that the Lockheed proposal was the superior design although the Lockheed D-22 and Hughes H-2 did share the same planform. In the late 30's the conventional thinking was towards pod and tube designs like the Westland Whirlwind and the twin boom approach was considered a radical departure. Interestingly, Hughes claimed that Lockheed stole his concept. (That has been proven false) If we are looking for historical alternatives to the P-38, then a Whirlwind with larger engines and better fuel capacity would be one option, the other would be a design similar to the DO-335 with inline twin engines. For this discussion, I think the DO-335 platform wouldn't be an option as that wasn't fully sorted out until the late in the war.

As a general comment, one historical alternative would be for the design to be developed with a greater efficiency in construction in mind. I've come across the assessment that the P-38 was an inefficient aircraft to produce and difficult to upgrade.
 
As a general comment, one historical alternative would be for the design to be developed with a greater efficiency in construction in mind. I've come across the assessment that the P-38 was an inefficient aircraft to produce and difficult to upgrade.
I'd agree with that. I was told that "little people" were sought as assemblers to put the tail together as they were able to fit inside the aft tail booms. I don't know how true this is but I was told some of these folks were previously employed by MGM (located about 20 miles south of Burbank) during the filming of "The Wizard of Oz"! The P-38 was not an easy aircraft to build!
 
AFAIK - one. It was after the XP-38 was built (and destroyed) where the AAF ordered additional aircraft, I think the first buy were for 13 aircraft. After that another 60+ were ordered. Talking to many of the folks who were working at Lockheed during the late 1930s, it seems these initial aircraft were just about hand built.

The 13 examples were the YP-38 aircraft (May 1939), and then 66 as the P-38 (August 1939), at least by reading the AHT, pg. 146.
February 1940 sees the start of work on the 1st YP-38, March is when British and French give their order (non-turbo version), June is when British order for version with turbos is aprooved by the US government. August: another 607 of P-38s ordered by the USAAC.
September: 1st YP-38 takes flight.
All told, Lockheed has ~1400 of P-38s on order before YP-38 flies.

I'd agree with that. I was told that "little people" were sought as assemblers to put the tail together as they were able to fit inside the aft tail booms. I don't know how true this is but I was told some of these folks were previously employed by MGM (located about 20 miles south of Burbank) during the filming of "The Wizard of Oz"! The P-38 was not an easy aircraft to build!

Hmm - dispense with the twin-boom idea, go as a 'classic' twin instead?
 
Last edited:
The 13 examples were the YP-38 aircraft (May 1939), and then 66 as the P-38 (August 1939), at least by reading the AHT, pg. 146.
February 1940 sees the start of 1st YP-38, March is when British and French give their order (non-turbo version), June is when British order for version with turbos is aprooved by the US government. August: another 607 of P-38s ordered by the USAAC.
September: 1st YP-38 takes flight.
All told, Lockheed has ~1400 of P-38s on order before YP-38 flies.
Yep - and there was a lot of scrambling and building of facilities as Lockheed had Hudson production going on as well as other programs coming down the pipe.
Hmm - dispense with the twin-boom idea, go as a 'classic' twin instead?
If there was a way to stuff the turbo charger system into the nacelles
 
D@mn, it took Lockheed 16 months between the contract for YP-38s and the 1st flight of one such A/C.
Yep - and IMO it's not surprising. A lot of that 'could have' been Lockheed gearing up for full production and incorporating design changes that made the aircraft "produce-able."
 
Yep - and IMO it's not surprising. A lot of that 'could have' been Lockheed gearing up for full production and incorporating design changes that made the aircraft "produce-able."

Full production for 75 P-38s?
 
Just realized - the XP-38 and YP-38 were pretty different and there a lot of design changes incorporated. There were a few custom airframes, one was supposed to be pressurized and I think a second carried another cockpit in the left boom in lieu of the supercharger
 
Full production for 75 P-38s?
Yes - remember this was not a time when time was of the essence and any design changes had to go through somewhat of a bureaucratic process. This got streamlined as the US entered the war.

You also had to build tooling and more importantly facilities to make this happen.
 
I'm sure we've all seen this:

1644778121539.png
 
Yes - remember this was not a time when time was of the essence and any design changes had to go through somewhat of a bureaucratic process. This got streamlined as the US entered the war.

You also had to build tooling and more importantly facilities to make this happen.

It took Boeing to fly the Model 299 (future B-17) less than 12 months. No sight of war in 1935.
IMO Lockheed wasted a lot of time to bring the YP-38 in life, with repercussions for the whole P-38 program.
 
It took Boeing to fly the Model 299 (future B-17) less than 12 months. No sight of war in 1935.
And they had the people and resources to accomplish this. (see below)
IMO Lockheed wasted a lot of time to bring the YP-38 in life, with repercussions for the whole P-38 program.
That's your opinion - having worked with some of the people who where there during this period, there was a lot of bureaucracy before things got rolling. 2 things you fail to recognize -

1. Lockheed did not go ahead with any production, modifications or deliveries unless they were awarded a contract.

2. Delays had to be approved by the government, if they were not Lockheed was penalized and money was withheld. If the government induced the delay because of a design change, it's on the government.

Now to be honest, I don't know how much of any of these alleged delays were the fault of Lockheed, it's my guess, not many as it would have put the whole contract at risk!

You don't go into wide scale production on an aircraft unless you have someone to buy them!

In the middle of this an aeronautical phenomena was encountered for the first time that basically changed aviation history - compressibility.

In contrast the Air Corps ordered 13 YB-17s 17 January 1936 - Between 1 March (14 months) and 4 August 1937 (20 months), 12 of the 13 YB-17s were delivered. Boeing had the facilities, tooling and people in place to make this happen. The 299 rolled out 16 July 1935, crashed in October 30, 1935.

Oh - and the B-17 never encountered "compressibility." ;)
 
Last edited:
That's your opinion - having worked with some of the people who where there during this period, there was a lot of bureaucracy before things got rolling. 2 things you fail to recognize -

1. Lockheed did not go ahead with any production, modifications or deliveries unless they were awarded a contract.

They were awarded with contract (several of them, next one bigger than the preceding one)before the production started.
Blaming it on bureaucracy gets old after a while - applies on the whole world.

2. Delays had to be approved by the government, if they were not Lockheed was penalized and money was withheld. If the government induced the delay because of a design change, it's on the government.

You don't go into wide scale production on an aircraft unless you have someone to buy them!

1400+- on order before Spetember of 1940 - if that is not enough of an impetus for a wide scale production, then what is?

In the middle of this an aeronautical phenomena was encountered for the first time that basically changed aviation history - compressibility.

In contrast the Air Corps ordered 13 YB-17s 17 January 1936 - Between 1 March and 4 August 1937, 12 of the 13 YB-17s were delivered. Boeing had the facilities, tooling and people in place to make this happen. Oh - and the B-17 never encountered "compressibility." ;)

As Lockheed, Boeing delivered the aircraft ordered. Lockheed was not a newby in aircraft design, construction and production.
The YP-38 1st needed to be produced, then flight-tested, and then the compressibility is a thing. Not before all of that.
 
They were awarded with contract (several of them, next one bigger than the preceding one)before the production started.
Blaming it on bureaucracy gets old after a while - applies on the whole world.
Well like it or not, that was the way it worked and in many respects it's still the same way. You just don't start pumping out aircraft at the snap of one's fingers, especially something state of the art and with the main customer requiring changes along the way. BUT look at the P-38 delivery numbers once the design was basically frozen and full scale production began. This is from the Christy and Ethell book "P-38 Lightning at War"

Scan_20220213.jpg




Scan_20220213 (2).jpg



1400+- on order before Spetember of 1940 - if that is not enough of an impetus for a wide scale production, then what is?
$$$ in hand!!! Oh - and people and facilities. And what about contracted production rates??? (See below)
As Lockheed, Boeing delivered the aircraft ordered. Lockheed was not a newby in aircraft design, construction and production.
During the mid-late 1930s Lockheed was not a big company, things started to change when they got for first large orders for the Hudson. At the end of 1937, the company employed fewer than 2,000 people and had produced only a few hundred planes during its entire corporate lifetime. On March 31, 1940, its workforce stood at about 7,000 employees. By June 1943, that number had exploded to nearly 35,000. By 1945 90,000 people worked for Lockheed, most of them at the Burbank facility.
The YP-38 1st needed to be produced, then flight-tested, and then the compressibility is a thing. Not before all of that.
Exactly - and to support that you have to incorporate design changes, build production tooling, have all that approved, build the aircraft almost by hand and get it ready for test flight. Considering the time period and other government commitments Lockheed had, I see no foot dragging here.

Now with all this said, can you show anywhere or document any case where the AAC was upset with Lockheed for the time it took to get the YP-38 into the air after the crash of the XP-38???
 
Last edited:
Oh and one last thing to consider - rates of production (then and now) are also part of the contract. A customer may order 1,000 aircraft but may only want to take delivery of 200 of them per fiscal year, this based on available funding and logistics. Look at the production rates before and after Pearl Harbor.

A quick count of what I posted - I show almost 1200 P-38s (all variants) produced from December 1941 to December 1942.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back