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

Some advantages of a heavy fighter with a big radial vs. a heavy fighter with two liquid cooled engines (does not take a brain surgeon to figure them out, but still):
- no 2 x 1 ton worth or powerplant & nacelles/booms away from the centreline to mess with rate of roll
- less blocked view to the sides (but worse ahead)
- there is no tunnel between nacelle and fuselage/pod to mess with local airflow (that was a main source of problems with compressibility on the P-38, along with the too steep windscreen and rear part of the pod)
- might be easier & faster to produce, and should be easier to maintain
- less gauges for the pilot to scan (RPM, boost, oil temp, turbo RPM vs. 2 x those + two coolant temp gauges)
- one set of engine controls vs. two

The last two bullet points will pay off immensely with novice pilots posted to the combat zone.
 
Actually I believe this was sought of an "off the shelf" set up made by Extractor Controls. It was a horrible system to use in a fighter where near instantaneous throttle inputs are a necessity and the fact that colder temperatures effected the system makes this even more preposterous. I believe the Sunderland and the Sterling used this set up.
The concept wasn't the issue, it was the execution. How many cars in last 50 years have had cable applied brakes versus hydraulic ones? The switch from cable to hydraulic brakes on mountain bicycles was a night to day difference in modulation and power. They just needed the correct fluid (and to fix the leaks).
 
The concept wasn't the issue, it was the execution. How many cars in last 50 years have had cable applied brakes versus hydraulic ones? The switch from cable to hydraulic brakes on mountain bicycles was a night to day difference in modulation and power. They just needed the correct fluid (and to fix the leaks).
Hydraulic brakes are one thing, hydraulic throttle controls are another. Controlling propulsion modulation is one of the, if not the most important piece of keeping an aircraft in the air aside from having the wings stay attached. It's quite obvious this concept was doomed as it quickly faded into the postwar sunset.
 
Cars never had cable actuated braking systems, only emergency (parking) brakes.

Prior to 1921, they were lever and rod actuated with wooden block pads, rubber pads, cable wrapped drums or eventually expanding shoes within a drum configuration.

In 1921, Malcolm Lougheed developed the hydraulic braking system that is pretty much still in use today.

If the name Malcolm Lougheed sounds familiar, you're right - Malcolm, and his brother Allen, founded Lockheed Corporation.
 
Cars never had cable actuated braking systems, only emergency (parking) brakes.

Prior to 1921, they were lever and rod actuated with wooden block pads, rubber pads, cable wrapped drums or eventually expanding shoes within a drum configuration.

In 1921, Malcolm Lougheed developed the hydraulic braking system that is pretty much still in use today.

If the name Malcolm Lougheed sounds familiar, you're right - Malcolm, and his brother Allen, founded Lockheed Corporation.

I had a FIAT 124 with a cable-driven clutch that would snap at random intervals, leaving me to power-shift home until I got wise, learned the repair, and always kept a spare in my trunk.

To be fair that was a design-engineering issue (metal-on-metal between the cable and its receptacle in the pedal), but gosh, I'd hate to have that happen at 12k up.
 
The whole one-generator thing was a big goof.
At the time, it was normal for a twin engine aircraft to have one generator and one vacuum pump. Nobody thought about redundant systems until later. The AT-6 had one vacuum pump to power all the gyros with no electric turn & bank as later became standard. When I told my father that it wasn't safe to fly IFR when a single vacuum pump failure would cause loss of all gyros, he said "We wore chutes."
 
I had a TR-3 with a hydraulic clutch.
That is a master and slave cylinder and hydraulic line replaced the linkages (rods/bell cranks and levers) that most cars used.

Learned to shift without using the clutch at times.
Lying on your back on several inches of snow in Feb while you bleed out the clutch slave cylinder added your vocabulary (not to used in mixed company).
 
I had a TR-3 with a hydraulic clutch.
That is a master and slave cylinder and hydraulic line replaced the linkages (rods/bell cranks and levers) that most cars used.

Learned to shift without using the clutch at times.
Lying on your back on several inches of snow in Feb while you bleed out the clutch slave cylinder added your vocabulary (not to used in mixed company).
My '79 320i had a hydraulic clutch and the slave was notorious for sucking air into the slave.

Monumental PITA to replace, too :confused:
 
Cars never had cable actuated braking systems, only emergency (parking) brakes.

Prior to 1921, they were lever and rod actuated with wooden block pads, rubber pads, cable wrapped drums or eventually expanding shoes within a drum configuration.

In 1921, Malcolm Lougheed developed the hydraulic braking system that is pretty much still in use today.

If the name Malcolm Lougheed sounds familiar, you're right - Malcolm, and his brother Allen, founded Lockheed Corporation.
You should tell Chevrolet and Ford they never made cable actuate braking systems.

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/20...-sings-the-praises-of-cable-controlled-brakes Skip ahead to the 5 minute mark in the video if you don't want to want the whole thing.

Learned to drive on a '49 Ford 2 ton with crash box and bump starter. Only used the clutch to start. Same for the tandem with its 13spd Road Ranger. My '99 Ford Ranger's hydraulic clutch hasn't been touched since it rolled off the assembly line and my 3 kids, 2 nieces, and couple of my kids friends learned to drive on it. (Manual transmission is now of the best anti-theft devices in North America; hardly anyone can drive one anymore)
 
Last edited:
At the time, it was normal for a twin engine aircraft to have one generator and one vacuum pump. Nobody thought about redundant systems until later. The AT-6 had one vacuum pump to power all the gyros with no electric turn & bank as later became standard. When I told my father that it wasn't safe to fly IFR when a single vacuum pump failure would cause loss of all gyros, he said "We wore chutes."

I guess it's a generatorational thing. If I've got two engines running electric props and electric avionics of a sort, I want some back-up, dammit.
 
(Manual transmission is now of the best anti-theft devices in North America; hardly anyone can drive one anymore)

Amen!

And whenever I get a new truck, the first thing I do is take it on back roads and learn the shift-points (by tach or by sound, doesn't matter to me) so I can get home through a clutch failure.
 
Actually I believe this was sought of an "off the shelf" set up made by Extractor Controls.

Yup, Exactor controls. This is what the manual for the Whirlwind I (AP1709A) had to say about its controls:

"The throttle and mixture controls are of the Exactor type and are mounted in a quadrant on the port side of the cockpit. There are two throttle levers and a single mixture lever. The mixture lever is moved forward to the WEAK position; it will automatically return to the NORMAL position when the throttle levers are moved back beyond the cruising position. A spring-pressed plunger is incorporated on the throttle quadrant, to limit boost to 6 & 3/4 lb per Sq in for normal operation. The throttle lever may be thrust past the plunger for take-off."
 
Yup, Exactor controls. This is what the manual for the Whirlwind I (AP1709A) had to say about its controls:

"The throttle and mixture controls are of the Exactor type and are mounted in a quadrant on the port side of the cockpit. There are two throttle levers and a single mixture lever. The mixture lever is moved forward to the WEAK position; it will automatically return to the NORMAL position when the throttle levers are moved back beyond the cruising position. A spring-pressed plunger is incorporated on the throttle quadrant, to limit boost to 6 & 3/4 lb per Sq in for normal operation. The throttle lever may be thrust past the plunger for take-off."
Can we make this any more complicated? :eek:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back