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

I read this question and just thought of what played out in history. There wasn't an "easy button" to press and replace the P38 so they built a second factory to build more Mustangs and tried to get Curtiss to build P47's. The USA having three great Army fighters and several good Navy fighters was a good thing (for USA). Have a good Memorial Day all.

Cheers, man :)
Every good what-if scenario usually includes even more Mustangs; the second factory was already there in Dallas, making Texans and B-25s IIRC.
More P-38s, preferably from a reliable second source, would've been also great.
The excellent US-made fighters were certainly a boon to the Allied side, and to the world eventually.

There was certainly no easy button to press so we can have something made instead of the P-38. What I'm trying to explore is what alternative was to the P-38 before the company settled on a twin-boom design, powered by two V12 engines and to feature turbochargers. Eg. it is said that Johnson was thinking about making a fighter around a single 1500 HP, but he settled for two 1000 HP engines before the known 6 2-engined layouts were mooted.
 
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.
I would also add that it takes more effort to build two small engines in lieu of one large one. You are also doubling the number of ancillaries (generator excepted). Hand in hand with that you are doubling the maintenance load. The work involved in get the turbocharger rigged correctly would be doubled. If you have ever rebuilt a simple six cylinder engine from the sixties you will know that the mechanical throttle linages are quite intricate. Setting up something similar on a twin engined aircraft must be quite a feat. According to Freeman the comparison of the Spitfire XI to the F-5 in the 7th Photo recon group was very much in the Spitfires favor: "The Group's Spitfires had only a 5% mechanical failure rate over their operational period. It was estimated that the Spitfire took but one third of the maintenance time required for the F-5...."
 
Last edited:
The work involved in get the turbocharger rigged correctly would be doubled. If you have ever rebuilt a simple six cylinder engine from the sixties you will know that the mechanical throttle linages are quite intricate. Setting up something similar on a twin engined aircraft must be quite a feat. According to Freeman
Yes, this process can be challenging but there were written procedures to do engine rigging. I no longer have access to P-38 or Allison maintenance manuals, but I vaguely remember this mentioned. Fast forward years later, not only do you have procedures for this but manufacturers have set up provisions in levers and pulley quadrants where rig pins are used so the maintainer can make push rod or cable adjustments. I'm sure some of my maintainer friends here have done a few. The worse aircraft for adjusting throttles and prop governors was MU-2 (so I've been told). I've done PT6 and T-56 rigging, after a while it becomes routine.

At the end of the day, for the maintainer, one engine is better than two!
 
But performance-wise, which had the greater range, a PRU Spitfire or an F-5 Lightning?

The issue of maintenance and logistics is often-times worth the effort, if the more complex machine is delivering results.

1300-1650 miles with a 90 imp gal drop tank for the PR.XI: data sheet. Total fuel 307 imp gals, or ~370 US gals.
PR Spitfires were ranging to the Baltic sea, including the Peenemuende base.
 
But performance-wise, which had the greater range, a PRU Spitfire or an F-5 Lightning?

The issue of maintenance and logistics is often-times worth the effort, if the more complex machine is delivering results.
The spitfire performEd the majority of the longest missions. See Freeman
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back