Navalized P-38/39/40: pros cons

[tomo pauk]

Cheers, Dave,

...In any case, the P-40 and P-39 did not have the range of the F4F (845 miles): P-40 - 650 miles, P-39 - 525 miles and while the P-38 had an impressive range of 1,300 miles, the P-38 is simply not suitable for carrier ops.

The range figure of 850 mi for the F4F-3 (= no drop tank) is for 160 mph cruise at 5000 ft. Speed up to more realistic requirements, say 15000 ft and 250 mph and we have 600 miles? The P-40 was less draggy than F4F, with no less fuel, and will make better range out of it.
Stating out that 'P-38 is simply not suitable for carrier ops' is a applying too wide a brush, both USN and RN operated far clumsier aircraft from their CVs during ww2.

The P-40 and P-39 also would have needed some structural modifications, like stronger main gear for landings, tail structure mods for allowing the shock of the arresting proceedure and of course, modifications for folding wings, which would complicate things, as the fuel tanks and armament may need to be re-arranged for that.

Neither P-40 nor P-39 would need any change to fuel tanks. Granted, it would took rework on the wing and tail on all of the proposals to make them into 'SeaFighters'.

...
Regarding Lockheed's model 822 proposal, the U.S. Navy didn't want such a large aircraft, regardless of Lockheed's proposal for folding wings, strengthened tail structure tailhook, so the model 822 never left the drawing board.

Again - the USN operated even bigger A/C. Do we know for sure what USN though of the proposal?

Keep in mind that with liquid-cooled engines or radial engines, the model 822 would present several problems. First of which, is the "handed" engine requirement. If an engine is damaged on the 822, it can't be swapped for any engine, it has to be either a right-hand engine or a left-hand engine, so this increases the need for more engine reserves and nessecary parts specific to each engine. Also, the Navy did not want to dedicate additional room on already cramped carriers, for ethylene glycol storage. Also, the 822 would also take up more space on the deck as well as below, reducing the available number of fighters the carrier needed to have on hand.

Hmmm - whose requirement was for the Lockheed's fighter to have handed engines - USN's or Lockheeds? Eg. USAF insisted on handed engines for their P-38s (also for the non-turbo variants used for training). Granted, the navalized P-38 will take up more space than a S/E fighter, even a big one, but we can recall that many, if not most of the naval aircraft did not featuring much of the folding wings in the 1st place.

The Navy also felt that the 822 may be problematic for launches and was too heavy for safe recovery, as the P-38 was over 7,000 pounds heavier than the F4F, 3,000 pounds heavier than the F6F.

The TBF-1 weighted 14360 lbs in 'scout' configuration (internal fuel only, no bombs/torpedo), and above 17300 lbs with torpedo and two drop tanks, and even in that configuration can take off from a carrier.

 

[GrauGeist]

whose requirement was for the Lockheed's fighter to have handed engines - USN's or Lockheeds? Eg. USAF insisted on handed engines for their P-38s (also for the non-turbo variants used for training).

It was a design requirement by Lockheed in order to achieve successful flight characteristics. During the development stage (model 22 - XP-38), it was found that "handed" engine rotation solved some dangerous tendencies and at first, they discovered that the engine's were installed "backwards", robbing the P-38 of necessary lift to take off...this was corrected by swapping the engines.

Granted, the navalized P-38 will take up more space than a S/E fighter, even a big one, but we can recall that many, if not most of the naval aircraft did not featuring much of the folding wings in the 1st place.

The only two USN aircraft that did not have folding wings, were the Brewster F2A and the Douglas SBD.

Also, consider that the P-38's wingspan is 52 feet (15.8m) and not designed for low-speed stalls. The solution to that, would be to increase the wing's area to create better lift for ship-board landing and take-off. In addition, a folding wing would add more weight to the aircraft - either modification would ultimately impair it's performance and range.

The TBF-1 weighted 14360 lbs in 'scout' configuration (internal fuel only, no bombs/torpedo), and above 17300 lbs with torpedo and two drop tanks, and even in that configuration can take off from a carrier.

The P-38's weight and high landing speed requirements would be more than the carrier could handle at the time. The heavier attack aircraft had much lower stall speeds, and a rugged design that allowed them to violently drop onto the deck and be arrested without damage to the airframe or ship's equipment.

I agree that the Avenger was heavy and it had a large wingspan (54 feet - 16.5m), however it's wings folded for storage. The SB2C was heavy as well, with a folding wingspan of 49 feet (15m) however, the point being, that with limited space aboard a typical USN carrier of the time, they had to find a balance of space for fighters and attack aircraft.

So in order to accommodate a navalized P-38, they would have to decide on fewer fighters or fewer attack aircraft in order to fit the ship's compliment on board.

 

[tomo pauk]

The stall speed wasn't really near Naval requirments, either. It could have been made to meet the requirments, but the wings would have gotten bigger.

Power off, the P-38J stalled at 99 mph with gear and flaps up. Power on it stalled at 78 mph with gear and flaps down. Power on it stalled at 53 mph with gear and flaps down. The 53 mph SEEMS OK until you realize it was at 54" MAP and 3,000 rpm ... hardly an approach configuration. The F6F Hellcats typically stalled in Landing Configuration at 78.5 knots or 90 mph, but also they weighed a LOT less than a P-38. Getting s a plane more than 5,000 pounds heavier stopped in the cat stroke mikght have been interesting from the point of vbiew of where the stress from the hook would be distributed in the P-38 airframe.

The stall speeds were depending on the aircraft weight. At 15000 lbs (= no drop tanks, much of the internal fuel ammo used up), gear and flaps down and with power off, the P-38H/J stalled at 69 mph. The F4U-4, under same conditions and 'no fuel', stalled at 74 kts minimum (85 mph).; 'power on' it was 67 kts. So there is next to no evidence that too high a stall speed will cancel the P-38 from USN view.

From an energy standpoint, the P-38 has some 41 more mass and only takes about 6% more energy to stop, but the stress has to be collected somewhere in the airframe or the hook pulls out. By comparison with the P-38, the Hellcat was cheaper by far, available, MUCH easier to produce, and would result in more aircraft stored in the same space and burn less fuel for a slight drop in performance in top speed and climb, but an advantage in turn ability and stall resistance.

The USN can have the P-38 in 1941 if they want it badly, by the time Hellcat is around the outcome of the war is already decided. The P-38 was champion in stall and turn among US fighters, and it will cover at least the same distance on same fuel as the Hellcat. With capability to out-range it handily when needed.

The advantage was all Hellcat in gasoline usage, and the P -38 also used Glycol coolant. The P-38 had good centerline arramanet. The F6F Hellcats six 50's were't too far behind, and all the F6F guns had the same trajectories. The cannon in the P-38 had different ballistic chraracteristics than the MG armament did, so if one was hitting, the other was missing except at short range.

As above - Hellcat will not have better mileage. The P-38 did not used Glycol coolant. Both aircraft have had fine armament, the trajectories of Hispano and BMG being excellent match for aerial combat - when BMG of P-38 hits, the cannon hits too. Same is true for the rare Hellcat that sported 2 cannons. The P-38 carried more BMG ammo, 500 vs. 400, but less for the cannon, 60 or 150 vs. 225 for the Hellcat.

I love the Allison but, if given a choice for flight off a carrier, I'd opt for the Hellcat any day of the week.

Not in 1st 2/3rds of 1943 and earlier

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-38 did not used Glycol coolant.

Tomo, the P-38 did use an ethylene glycol coolant, as the V-1710 Allisons were liquid cooled and were the same engine series as used on the P-39 and P-40 (and P-51/A-36).

 

[tomo pauk]

It was a design requirement by Lockheed in order to achieve successful flight characteristics. During the development stage (model 22 - XP-38), it was found that "handed" engine rotation solved some dangerous tendencies and at first, they discovered that the engine's were installed "backwards", robbing the P-38 of necessary lift to take off...this was corrected by swapping the engines.

The Lightning I (the fighter for the RAF) have had same-rotation engines and flew well.

The only two USN aircraft that did not have folding wings, were the Brewster F2A and the Douglas SBD.

The F4F-3 and Douglas TBD were also without folding wings, and we can recall that Sea Hurricane, number of Zero variants and 'hooked Spitfire' were also without folding wings. The wings on other Zeroes and all of the Vals only folded at wing tip.

Also, consider that the P-38's wingspan is 52 feet (15.8m) and not designed for low-speed stalls. The solution to that, would be to increase the wing's area to create better lift for ship-board landing and take-off. In addition, a folding wing would add more weight to the aircraft - either modification would ultimately impair it's performance and range.

As in above post, the P-38 was 'stall-friendly' aircraft as much as possible. You may check out the 'America's hunderd thousand' P-38 entry. The Fowler flaps were great an asset of the P-38 for low-speed flight maneuvering.
The folding wing and other carrier modification will cost in increased weight, with mostly RoC suffering.

The P-38's weight and high landing speed requirements would be more than the carrier could handle at the time. The heavier attack aircraft had much lower stall speeds, and a rugged design that allowed them to violently drop onto the deck and be arrested without damage to the airframe or ship's equipment.

The P-38 have had low stall speed, it was lower than Avenger or Corsair that were in the pipeline before Pearl Harbor. P-38 have had shortcomings, but the landing-gear-related ones were not among these, otherwise we would not be seeing the P-38 with 2 torpedoes or two 310 gal tanks attached.

I agree that the Avenger was heavy and it had a large wingspan (54 feet - 16.5m), however it's wings folded for storage. The SB2C was heavy as well, with a folding wingspan of 49 feet (15m) however, the point being, that with limited space aboard a typical USN carrier of the time, they had to find a balance of space for fighters and attack aircraft.

So in order to accommodate a navalized P-38, they would have to decide on fewer fighters or fewer attack aircraft in order to fit the ship's compliment on board.

The proposed Lockheed Model 24 (with folding wings and V-1710s) was to feature folding wings, the wing span being 31 ft something in this case. Granted, not as 'thin' as S/E aircraft with folding wings, but not that horrible either.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo, the P-38 did use an ethylene glycol coolant, as the V-1710 Allisons were liquid cooled and were the same engine series as used on the P-39 and P-40 (and P-51/A-36).

Glycol ethylene was a part of coolant liquid of the V-1710, the main part being water - 70% vs. 30%. Similar was true for Merlin. The V-1710 was found to run well with water being 100% of coolant.
Early examples of the V-1710 used 97% glycol, though.

 

[Conslaw]

The stall speeds were depending on the aircraft weight. At 15000 lbs (= no drop tanks, much of the internal fuel ammo used up), gear and flaps down and with power off, the P-38H/J stalled at 69 mph. The F4U-4, under same conditions and 'no fuel', stalled at 74 kts minimum (85 mph).; 'power on' it was 67 kts. So there is next to no evidence that too high a stall speed will cancel the P-38 from USN view.



The USN can have the P-38 in 1941 if they want it badly, by the time Hellcat is around the outcome of the war is already decided. The P-38 was champion in stall and turn among US fighters, and it will cover at least the same distance on same fuel as the Hellcat. With capability to out-range it handily when needed.



As above - Hellcat will not have better mileage. The P-38 did not used Glycol coolant. Both aircraft have had fine armament, the trajectories of Hispano and BMG being excellent match for aerial combat - when BMG of P-38 hits, the cannon hits too. Same is true for the rare Hellcat that sported 2 cannons. The P-38 carried more BMG ammo, 500 vs. 400, but less for the cannon, 60 or 150 vs. 225 for the Hellcat.



Not in 1st 2/3rds of 1943 and earlier

The P-38s of 1941 were not really combat ready. The first squadron-sized P-38 combat didn't occur until late 1942 in North Africa and in the South Pacific. P-38s were in high demand and short supply for most of the war. In fact, General Kenney couldn't get as many as he wanted well into 1945. (It is ironic, though, that many of the P-38s delivered in 1945 were delivered straight from the factory to the boneyards.) The Corsair flew its first combat missions from Guadalcanal in February 1943, just 3 months after the P-38. Roughly 3 months later the F6F was available, and Grumman was able to deliver them fast enough to supply the new carriers coming on duty from mid-1943 through late 1944. At that point they increased Kamikaze menace caused fighter complements to rise to over 70 fighters per carrier, and F4U Corsairs were used to supplement the F6Fs.

 

[blueskies]

The U.S. Navy had 4 F-5Bs (FO-1), used exclusivly from land bases.

Regarding Lockheed's model 822 proposal, the U.S. Navy didn't want such a large aircraft, regardless of Lockheed's proposal for folding wings, strengthened tail structure tailhook, so the model 822 never left the drawing board.

Keep in mind that with liquid-cooled engines or radial engines, the model 822 would present several problems. First of which, is the "handed" engine requirement. If an engine is damaged on the 822, it can't be swapped for any engine, it has to be either a right-hand engine or a left-hand engine, so this increases the need for more engine reserves and nessecary parts specific to each engine. Also, the Navy did not want to dedicate additional room on already cramped carriers, for ethylene glycol storage. Also, the 822 would also take up more space on the deck as well as below, reducing the available number of fighters the carrier needed to have on hand.

The Navy also felt that the 822 may be problematic for launches and was too heavy for safe recovery, as the P-38 was over 7,000 pounds heavier than the F4F, 3,000 pounds heavier than the F6F.

Where are you getting this from? Because you seem to be off base on several points.

BuAer sent out a specification for a single seat, twin engined interceptor with an emphasis on rate of climb in 1938. This tender was ultimately won by the Grumman G-34 (xf5f).

So where are you getting this idea that the navy didn't want something like what lockheed submitted?

Now Lockheed had two variants of the P-38 submitted to this tender, the Model 24A and Model 24W. The A was allison powered, but the W was an R-1535b (incidentally grumman submitted an allison powered alternative of its g-34 to this same tender.)

If you look at the specs for the radial engined Model 24w, you will find that it is at 9000lbs gross (which is not 7000 more than an f4f), and the allison powered 24a was 10500lbs (also a long way from being 7000lbs more than an f4f) Are you making the mistake of looking at late war p-38s figures?

The issue of coolant is a complete non-issue with the radial variant, and given the Navies preference for radials, I wouldnt bother to debate the issues pertaining to it

Regarding the handed engine, do you know if it was a reduction gear swap or not with the R-1353?

It was also estimated by Lockheed that the 24w would have a landing speed of 65.3mph. Now mind to compare that to an f4f?

EDIT: the R-1535s used on the xf5f had handed reduction gear, so I don't see why they couldn't be used on the 24w

 

[GrauGeist]

Glycol ethylene was a part of coolant liquid of the V-1710, the main part being water - 70% vs. 30%. Similar was true for Merlin. The V-1710 was found to run well with water being 100% of coolant.
Early examples of the V-1710 used 97% glycol, though.

Tomo, I'm not sure where you've gotten that information, but Allison recommends the 70/30 mix and I have never seen anything to the contrary.

Running a coolant content of 97% glycol and 3% water is very questionable, as nearly pure glycol in the system reduces the cooling system's effictiveness by 35%, as the coolant needs the water to facilitate the transfer of heat.

On the otherhand, running pure water in the system, even pressurized, eliminates the lubrication of the water pumps and lowers the boiling point by quite a bit.

Neither of these (pure water or 97% coolant) would have been done on a P-38 (or any other warplane for that matter) as it would have compromised the aircraft and pilot.

 

[tomo pauk]

The data is from 'Vee's for victory'. The pure water was stated as 'the best coolant' there. However, for low temperatures of Alaska, where the V-1710-G6 (in Twin Mustang) was operating, the mixture was 70% Glycol, 30% water, with a note that max allowable inlet temperatures are decreased in that case.

The P-38s of 1941 were not really combat ready. The first squadron-sized P-38 combat didn't occur until late 1942 in North Africa and in the South Pacific. P-38s were in high demand and short supply for most of the war. In fact, General Kenney couldn't get as many as he wanted well into 1945. (It is ironic, though, that many of the P-38s delivered in 1945 were delivered straight from the factory to the boneyards.)

Lockheed proposed the Model 24 to the USN in 1937. If Navy agrees, Lockheed can start with production of the prototype in reasonable time, and then, if/when it is judged carrier-capable, with preparations for series production. That way we, hopefully, negate the effect of the 22 months (!) long hiatus between the contracts for XP-38 and YP-38, so the Army too can have their P-38s a bit faster.
Granted, farming out the production of Hudsons and similar can help out with production speed, as it is true with second source ASAP (instead of in 1945), or even 3rd.

I'd like to see the reasoning with saying that P-38s of 1941 were not combat ready. The P-38D have had self-sealing fuel tanks (something that feared Zero never got) and full protection for pilot (we can again compare this with IJN/IJA aircraft that scourged Allied AFs during the opening phase of Pacific war).

The Corsair flew its first combat missions from Guadalcanal in February 1943, just 3 months after the P-38. Roughly 3 months later the F6F was available, and Grumman was able to deliver them fast enough to supply the new carriers coming on duty from mid-1943 through late 1944. At that point they increased Kamikaze menace caused fighter complements to rise to over 70 fighters per carrier, and F4U Corsairs were used to supplement the F6Fs.

With timely response to the Lockheed's proposal, Navy can have the P-38s in 1941, and in 1942 can have them in strength; the F6F will have to wait mid 1943 at best. The P-38 will climb far better than either F6F or F4U (only P-63 beating it, of all US ww2 service fighters?), will have greater endurance so it can beter respond to aerial threats, longer shooting time, along with greater range/radius for offensive ops.

The F4U have had almost no visibility for carrier landing, higher stall speed, bad/dangerous low speed handling - no match for docile P-38. The F4Us that flew on Valentine's day were Marine's aircraft that operated from ground base, it will took precious time and veteran pilots for the F4U to be a real carrier bird.

 

[gjs238]

The data is from 'Vee's for victory'. The pure water was stated as 'the best coolant' there. However, for low temperatures of Alaska, where the V-1710-G6 (in Twin Mustang) was operating, the mixture was 70% Glycol, 30% water, with a note that max allowable inlet temperatures are decreased in that case.



Lockheed proposed the Model 24 to the USN in 1937. If Navy agrees, Lockheed can start with production of the prototype in reasonable time, and then, if/when it is judged carrier-capable, with preparations for series production. That way we, hopefully, negate the effect of the 22 months (!) long hiatus between the contracts for XP-38 and YP-38, so the Army too can have their P-38s a bit faster.
Granted, farming out the production of Hudsons and similar can help out with production speed, as it is true with second source ASAP (instead of in 1945), or even 3rd.

I'd like to see the reasoning with saying that P-38s of 1941 were not combat ready. The P-38D have had self-sealing fuel tanks (something that feared Zero never got) and full protection for pilot (we can again compare this with IJN/IJA aircraft that scourged Allied AFs during the opening phase of Pacific war).




With timely response to the Lockheed's proposal, Navy can have the P-38s in 1941, and in 1942 can have them in strength; the F6F will have to wait mid 1943 at best. The P-38 will climb far better than either F6F or F4U (only P-63 beating it, of all US ww2 service fighters?), will have greater endurance so it can beter respond to aerial threats, longer shooting time, along with greater range/radius for offensive ops.

The F4U have had almost no visibility for carrier landing, higher stall speed, bad/dangerous low speed handling - no match for docile P-38. The F4Us that flew on Valentine's day were Marine's aircraft that operated from ground base, it will took precious time and veteran pilots for the F4U to be a real carrier bird.

Sounds like it could have been the Tomcat of WWII.

 

[wuzak]

What of the turbos?

The navy weren't too keen on them.

Would teh P-38 have enough performance for naval operations without them?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is not much of a problem storing glycol. All it takes is a tank. Add one anywhere when the carrier is built and you have it.

Not that simple - it's Hazmat and even during the 1930s the "Black Shoe" Navy recognized this. Every bit of room aboard a ship is considered and accounted for, especially if that liquid could present a hazard. If it was up to some avgas wouldn't be carried aboard aircraft carriers (although we know unpractical).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Where are you getting this from? Because you seem to be off base on several points.

BuAer sent out a specification for a single seat, twin engined interceptor with an emphasis on rate of climb in 1938. This tender was ultimately won by the Grumman G-34 (xf5f).

So where are you getting this idea that the navy didn't want something like what lockheed submitted?

The P-38 was developed from an Army Air Corp proposal (X-609) Lockheed proposed a carrier-based Model 822 version of the Lightning for the United States Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy was not interested, as they regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations although the Navy operated 200 land based FO-1, a recon version of the P-38J. The XF5F was promising but the Navy (in the early 1940s) realized that a twin engine aircraft would have been more difficult to support.

 

[blueskies]

The P-38 was developed from an Army Air Corp proposal (X-609) Lockheed proposed a carrier-based Model 822 version of the Lightning for the United States Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy was not interested, as they regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations although the Navy operated 200 land based FO-1, a recon version of the P-38J. The XF5F was promising but the Navy (in the early 1940s) realized that a twin engine aircraft would have been more difficult to support.

Amd that doesn't answer my question.

Where are your sources for this?

Because the aircraft I posted was the radial version of the model 24, which Lockheed submitted to BuAer spec SD 112.14 which called for a single seat fast climbing interceptor, with a preference for twin engine.

The model 822 you speak of is a later navalized p-38 proposal, not directly related to this 1937/38 proposal, other than having the same family lineage.

And there is much more to the xf5fs cancellation then you lead on to.

Although if you have sources that contradict the above, especially primary sources, then I'd love to see it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Where are you getting this from? Because you seem to be off base on several points.

BuAer sent out a specification for a single seat, twin engined interceptor with an emphasis on rate of climb in 1938. This tender was ultimately won by the Grumman G-34 (xf5f).

And...so a single XF5-F means...what?

So where are you getting this idea that the navy didn't want something like what lockheed submitted?

Let me see...how many of these Lockheed aircraft did the Navy have built and placed into service?

Hmmm....?

Now Lockheed had two variants of the P-38 submitted to this tender, the Model 24A and Model 24W. The A was allison powered, but the W was an R-1535b (incidentally grumman submitted an allison powered alternative of its g-34 to this same tender.)

If you look at the specs for the radial engined Model 24w, you will find that it is at 9000lbs gross (which is not 7000 more than an f4f), and the allison powered 24a was 10500lbs (also a long way from being 7000lbs more than an f4f) Are you making the mistake of looking at late war p-38s figures?

It appears that in your haste to look like an ass, you missed where I used the figures for the MODEL 822

The model 822 you speak of is a later navalized p-38 proposal, not directly related to this 1937/38 proposal, other than having the same family lineage.

But we were speaking about the model 822 and it just so happens to be related to the model 24, as Lockheed tried to revive the concept.

And there is much more to the xf5fs cancellation then you lead on to.

The XF5-F project was cancelled because Grumman was ramping up production of current Navy contract aircraft and the XF5-F proved to be problematic with parts acquisition and production logistics. The concept was not lost on the Navy, however, as the XF5-F led to the development of the F7F.

Although if you have sources that contradict the above, especially primary sources, then I'd love to see it.

I am pretty sure you're able to read the same literature as we are...perhaps you should give it a try...

 

[blueskies]

And...so a single XF5-F means...what?

That a twin engine aircraft, of quite similar weight to the model 24, won the BuAer tender.

Let me see...how many of these Lockheed aircraft did the Navy have built and placed into service?

Hmmm....?

I thought I made it clear enough that the 24 lost the tender to the G-34. No need for snark.

It appears that in your haste to look like an ass, you missed where I used the figures for the MODEL 822

You quoted my post, with a drawing of the 24w, and went off on tangent about the much later 822.

I dont exactly see why you would change the subject to a design of some 3-4 years later, submitted in a different atmosphere to a different tender, with a different engine, all while quoting my post.

Do you see how that could be an honest mistake? Because it genuinely seemed like you were confusing a much later attempt with a very little known earlier tender.

And where are your figures for the 822? All you posted were some stats of how much more it would weigh then a few other aircraft.

But we were speaking about the model 822 and it just so happens to be related to the model 24, as Lockheed tried to revive the concept.

And you brought up the 822 in response to my post about the model 24, and listed several reasons why the 822 was rejected that have nothing to do with the 24w.

The XF5-F project was cancelled because Grumman was ramping up production of current Navy contract aircraft and the XF5-F proved to be problematic with parts acquisition and production logistics. The concept was not lost on the Navy, however, as the XF5-F led to the development of the F7F.

Mostly there. The xf5-f lead to a sort of joint development program with the army, but the divergent requirements slowed down work on the naval version and possibly lead to some animosity with the navy (ie, army requirements were getting more engineering attention then naval)

Thus BuAer put out another tender for a twin carrier fighter, with the contract being awarded to grumman before the xf5f was official killed - which I think you can agree is different from what flyboy asserted.

I am pretty sure you're able to read the same literature as we are...perhaps you should give it a try...

Yes that is quite true.

But what you and flyboy wrote about the 822 are near verbatim quotes of a short bit of text on the 822 that is plastered on dozens of sites, including wikipedia. The problem is none of these sites giive a source or attribution for that text. So do you have an original source for that 822 info, or are you just going off a website?

Because often times frequently repeated bits of ww2 aviation "fact" turn out to little more then half truths or outright falsehoods - which is why I am generally skeptical of anything without primary source documentation.

And there is no reason to curse ir get bent oht of shape. I think you misunderstood my tone and took things a bit personally when no such intention was there.

No point in getting angry over discussing half+ century old airplane. Lord knows there are more important things to get angry about.

S!

 

[GregP]

About the glycol, it was that simple Joe. If you fly liquid-cooled aircraft, you carry coolant. If you don't want to carry coolant, you don't fly liquid-cooled aircraft. Hazmat wasn't much of threat in the 1940's and the term wasn'tr even known or used at the time ... as you well know. Glycol pales as Hazmat when compared with ordnance and aviation fuel.

My grandfather was of the WWII generation and wasn't concerned about hazmat at all, ever. He used what he needed and stored what he needed on his farm, including glycol for the tractors. Most of the WWII generation I've met never even mentioned hazards from materials ... except how to handle it. It was just part of the game. You didn't carry a load of gasoline around unless it was necessary and, if it was, you carried it. That simple.

It wouldn't be that simple today, granted ... but in WWII it was. As I've stated before, my belief is they didn't go for Naval liquid-cooled planes due to the additional chances for failure and losses from the addition of the liquid-cooled engine and associated systems and hoses.

I have heard several very senior Naval officers say that same thing but, hey, they could be wrong.

But it also wasn't a big deal since they rapidly went from pistons to jets after the war and then had the additional hazard of storing hydraulic oil in unprecedented quantities since jets had primary hydraulic systems even as early as the F-86 / FJ-2/3. Prior to jets, the hydraulic systems were mostly for the landing gear and wing fold systems (small volumes), not the main controls and the backups, too. So the quantities of red oil were much less than after jets came along.

We have a Bell YP-59A. The gear folds hydraulically (not the gear doors) but the flaps are electric and most of the rest of the plane is electric. The plane they transitioned to from the P-59 was the P-80, and it was all hydraulic as far as I know, and pretty much stayed that way from then on.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Amd that doesn't answer my question.

Where are your sources for this?

Bodie, Warren M. The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter. And it also helped that I actually worked there during the 1980s and knew some of the folks responsible for developing the P-38

Because the aircraft I posted was the radial version of the model 24, which Lockheed submitted to BuAer spec SD 112.14 which called for a single seat fast climbing interceptor, with a preference for twin engine.

The 1937 Model 24 went no where - it was a proposal submitted to the USN and it went no further. Do you have a drawing source for your photo of the model 24 proposal becaue it looks VERY fishy!!!

The model 822 you speak of is a later navalized p-38 proposal, not directly related to this 1937/38 proposal, other than having the same family lineage.

the 822 was offered up early in the war. From what I could see there was little difference from the model 24 at least on paper were both proposals lived and died.

And there is much more to the xf5fs cancellation then you lead on to.

So I'm told...

Although if you have sources that contradict the above, especially primary sources, then I'd love to see it.

There's many articles, books, papers written by folks like Bodie, Miller, and even from Lockheed publications that stated the US Navy showed little interest in the P-38. Just because Lockheed replied to a proposal from the navy doesn't mean they were soliciting Lockheed to investigate a radial engine navalized P-38 and there's nothing showing that Lockheed was interested in developing this proposal on their dime. Now I'm not going to search far and wide for this stuff but I think history tells us this outcome is quite evident and again I'll repeat I worked at the old Burbank plant in some of the very same buildings where the P-38 was built with some of the same folks who worked production lines and flight test. If that's not good enough for you so be it, you're entitled to your own opinions and views...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

About the glycol, it was that simple Joe. If you fly liquid-cooled aircraft, you carry coolant. If you don't want to carry coolant, you don't fly liquid-cooled aircraft. Hazmat wasn't much of threat in the 1940's and the term wasn'tr even known or used at the time ... as you well know. Glycol pales as Hazmat when compared with ordnance and aviation fuel.

My grandfather was of the WWII generation and wasn't concerned about hazmat at all, ever. He used what he needed and stored what he needed on his farm, including glycol for the tractors. Most of the WWII generation I've met never even mentioned hazards from materials ... except how to handle it. It was just part of the game. You didn't carry a load of gasoline around unless it was necessary and, if it was, you carried it. That simple.

It wouldn't be that simple today, granted ... but in WWII it was. As I've stated before, my belief is they didn't go for Naval liquid-cooled planes due to the additional chances for failure and losses from the addition of the liquid-cooled engine and associated systems and hoses.

I have heard several very senior Naval officers say that same thing but, hey, they could be wrong.

But it also wasn't a big deal since they rapidly went from pistons to jets after the war and then had the additional hazard of storing hydraulic oil in unprecedented quantities since jets had primary hydraulic systems even as early as the F-86 / FJ-2/3. Prior to jets, the hydraulic systems were mostly for the landing gear and wing fold systems (small volumes), not the main controls and the backups, too. So the quantities of red oil were much less than after jets came along.

We have a Bell YP-59A. The gear folds hydraulically (not the gear doors) but the flaps are electric and most of the rest of the plane is electric. The plane they transitioned to from the P-59 was the P-80, and it was all hydraulic as far as I know, and pretty much stayed that way from then on.

Greg - talk to guys who served aboard ships and they'll tell you a whole different story. Bilges are well thought out and planned as storage of liquids. I was told that at one time some fuel and water bilges were actually shared to save space!