Non-turbo P-38 is also series-produced

[tomo pauk]

... beyond the machines eventually used for training, of course. Uses 'normal' V-1710s, like for example the -33 (as on the Lightning I and long-nose P-40s), -39 (short-nose P-40s etc.), -73 (P-40K), - 81 (P-40N etc.), and, for a god measure, 2-stage V-1710s after 1943.
Obviously not much of a fighter beyond 15-20k ft vs. the Luftwaffe's best, but it should be very useful in Asia/Pacific, and as a fighter-bomber. The non-turbo machine is to be manufactured by another source, not Lochkeed Burbank.

Any takers?

 

[Shortround6]

Nope.

Uses 'normal' V-1710s, like for example the -33 (as on the Lightning I and long-nose P-40s)

That was the French/British 322 and we know happened to them.
Most of the 322s were repowered (or were built with) the V-1710-27/29. for trainers.

From Joe Baugher.
Twenty of the P-322s retained their V-1710-C15 engines (USAAF designation V-1710-33) with unhanded propellers They were assigned to operational use in the critical days following Pearl Harbor. The rest of the P-322s were fitted with handed engines (V-1710-27 and -29) but were not given turbosuperchargers. They were used as operational trainers with reduced armament (two 0.50-in and two 0.30-inch machine guns, no cannon).

There were just about 120 of these non-turbo P-38D/Es. with the 27/29 engines.

The problem with P-38 production was Lockheed, not a shortage of turbos. If you could find a 2nd source for the airframe finding the engines/turbos was not the problem.

 

[tomo pauk]

That was the French/British 322 and we know happened to them.

I have covered that already:

Obviously not much of a fighter beyond 15-20k ft vs. the Luftwaffe's best, but it should be very useful in Asia/Pacific, and as a fighter-bomber.

The problem with P-38 production was Lockheed, not a shortage of turbos. If you could find a 2nd source for the airframe finding the engines/turbos was not the problem.

Let's say that USAAF went with non-turboed P-38s for sake of getting a lot of them, and fast.

 

[Shortround6]

Let's say that USAAF went with non-turboed P-38s for sake of getting a lot of them, and fast.

we are back to to trying to tool up a new factory.
I don't know why the US didn't do this.


They built A-20s in more than one location.
They built B-17s in three locations.
They built B-24s in multiple locations.
They Built P-47s in three locations.
They built F4U Corsairs in 3 locations.
The got GM to build F4Fs and Avengers.
However, it took them quite a while to get the Vengeance into production.
Vought handed the Seawolf off to Consolidated and then waited for several years.
Vega not only built B-17s but built Hudsons, Vegas, Harpoons.
Others that I have forgotten?

Unless you have proof that lack of turbos was the problem, then we are back to lack of capacity for airframe production, regardless of engine type/model.

 

[tomo pauk]

Unless you have proof that lack of turbos was the problem, then we are back to lack of capacity for airframe production, regardless of engine type/model.

I can't recall that I've ever claimed that lack of turboes was P-38's problem.

The non-turbo P-38 is rarely, if ever talked-about scenario, so here it is.

 

[Shortround6]

I can't recall that I've ever claimed that lack of turboes was P-38's problem.

The non-turbo P-38 is rarely, if ever talked-about scenario, so here it is.

The Generals in the South Pacific and in the Med could not get enough normal P-38s.

Building P-38s without turbos that won't do much of anything the P-39s and P-40s won't do (or that A-20s won't do if you want fast bombers) doesn't solve that problem.

If you have a 2nd production line then build them what they want. They already have the P-39s and P-40s arriving in numbers.


I would note that the early P-38s range is a bit of an illusion. It carried 300 US. gallons for two engines. Not much different than a P-40 without drop tank.
The range came from the pair of 150 gallon (later 165 gal) drop tanks.
I wonder if if they had really wanted to if they could have plumbed the Plane for a pair of 75 gal tanks or three 52 gallon tanks.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Vultee was supposed to build P-38 under license, I think they actually built a few.

I don´t know if non-turbo P-38s being built at another location would have really made a difference. The engines and turbos were furnished by the government. The only benefit I can see is there will be less maintenance on these aircraft. Someone would have had to be very clairvoyant to see the need for this say late 1941/ early 1942. To be honest I don think there would have been any value added.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's say that USAAF went with non-turboed P-38s for sake of getting a lot of them, and fast.

Can we have opposite props for neutral torque? If so, sure, I'll buy it as an interim or SoWesPac/MTO.

 

[ThomasP]

Vultee received an order in (early?)1944 to build 2000x P-38L airframes at their Nashville plant, but only finished 113 before the order was cancelled.

 

[Shortround6]

Can we have opposite props for neutral torque? If so, sure, I'll buy it as an interim or SoWesPac/MTO.

The 120 or so ex 322s had handed engines, only the first 20 had the P-40C engines.
The US used them all for training.
To be fair, the 27/29 engines without turbos used 6.44 supercharger gears so the engines would have had even less altitude performance than the engines in the A-36. and way less than the engines in the P-40E and Mustang I. A real ground hugger
But that was the only real difference and changing supercharger gears should not have been that big a deal.

But again, the only rational for this thing is a shortage of turbos. otherwise you can get normal P-38s from the 2nd production line with the full range of capabilities not limited in capabilities.

It is not just planes, you need pilots and ground crew and logistic support. If you can get good P-38s then use them, not a limited use variant taking up space on the taxiways.

 

[thunderbird]

p-38s without turbos is just another name for slow, overweight and unmaneuverable target.

 

[tomo pauk]

p-38s without turbos is just another name for slow, overweight and unmaneuverable target.

According to whom?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

P-322 AE978 to AE999, AF100 to AF220, total 143, with 12 officially accepted in November 1941, 1 in December and 10 in January 1942, the rest on 28 July 1942.

The Delivery Logs report November 1941, AE981 to 991, total 11, all on the first of the month., December 1941 AE993, total 1, January 1942, AE992, AE994, AE996, AF100, AF105, AF106, AF108, AF109, AF112, AF115, AF119, total 11.

Somewhere one of the November 1941/January 1942 acceptances had a date change. Most sent to NORISL. AF105, AF106 and AF108 to Britain arriving in March 1942. These 23 acceptances are called P-322, the rest P-322A, the engine type is given as V1710-F5L-F5R but only the above 23 have their engine serial numbers recorded, so AF982 as A-200952 (LH), A200953 (RH), AF983 has 54 and 55, AF984 has 56 and 58, AF985 57 and 61 and so on if anyone has an Allison engine serials list. Joe Baugher is probably correct the 23 had unhanded engines.

It is clear many of the P-322 airframes were built well before July 1942, most of the serials to AF123 have a January 1942 or earlier date somewhere on their Delivery Log entry, often ruled through. Air Arsenal North America states once the aircraft had been ordered without turbo superchargers they were locked into that decision in the 1941/42 timeframe.

The original French order was for 667 aircraft, the RAF allocated AE978 to AE999, AF100 to AF774, the remainder of the order became P-38F 43-2035 to 2184 and P-38G 43-2185 to 2558, they started production in early August 1942. The delivery logs have the P-38F under the French/British contract A-242, the P-38G under AC-21217.

The Vultee contract for P-38L, AC-760, is reported as signed on 26 June 1944. It was part of the I program, which was approved in June 1942, the order does not appear in the August 1943 RC-301 report but as of end December 1943 the letter of contract had been written and approved, for 2,000 P-38 type, but still officially uncontracted. By end April 1944 the order was on approved letter contracts, by end August it was an approved formal contract. First acceptances in January 1945. According to the RC-301 reports the order was cut to 173 in April 1945, then to 113 in May, production finishing in June.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I can see them used as advanced high performance twin engine trainers (much like the 322's fate), but I don't see much worth for them as a combat aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

I can see them used as advanced high performance twin engine trainers (much like the 322's fate), but I don't see much worth for them as a combat aircraft.

Or perhaps ground attack where the need for high altitude performance was not an issue?

 

[ThomasP]

If the airframes were upgraded in a similar manner to the turbo equipped P-38, ie higher rated single-stage single-speed SC, they would have been very capable long-range low-medium altitude fighter/bombers.

IIRC, in the PTO the P-38 usually did not fly at over 20,000 ft on fighter missions, and when carrying bombs/large DTs and/or operating at long ranges they usually did not cruise to/from target at over 15,000 ft. I do not know what altitudes they climbed to at the sweep/target area.

Is this correct?

 

[Shortround6]

Some of the trouble with this is that the P-38s never used quite the same engines as the P-39/40s.

The P-38 used 6.44 gears for the supercharger from the YP-38s through the P-38E's. 1150hp for take-off but power at altitude without Turbo?
The P-38 used 7.48 gears for the supercharger from the P-38F through the P-38G's. Same supercharger set up as the A-36.
The P-38 used 8.10 gears for the supercharger from the P-38H through the P-38L's. This is what allowed them to make 1425hp for take-off and depend on turbos for altitude.

You could put the regular gears in the non-turbo P-38s so they would equal the P-39/40s, but that means they have the same power per engine as the single engine planes do at the same altitude. It also throws a bit of wrench into things as one reason the the engines in the early P-38s were allowed to 'make" 1150hp was that the low gears in the supercharger were using 50hp less than the engines in Tomahawks and were heating the intake charge less for denser air at the same pressure (and less pumping losses).
Granted they didn't make very many P-48s through the E model anyway.
But it carries over through the F & G. the engines with the 7.48 gears gave you 1325hp for take-off but only about 1000hp at 11,500ft instead of 1150hp from the 8.80 geared engines.

The H and Js with 8.10 gears are not going to perform like planes with 1425hp once they are more than a few thousand feet off the ground. Sticking the Allison's with 9.60 gears gives you your 1150hp at 15-15,500ft but you are down to 1200hp at sea level for take-off to lift your load of bombs for the ground support missions.

The engines did overlap but the P-38s always started with higher power engines in any "generation" of Allison's because they were using less power in the supercharger and depending on the turbo to kick in very quickly

 

[tomo pauk]

Some of the trouble with this is that the P-38s never used quite the same engines as the P-39/40s.

Premise of the thread is that non-turbo P-38 uses the engines from the P-40, as well as the 2-stage versions:

Uses 'normal' V-1710s, like for example the -33 (as on the Lightning I and long-nose P-40s), -39 (short-nose P-40s etc.), -73 (P-40K), - 81 (P-40N etc.), and, for a god measure, 2-stage V-1710s after 1943.

The H and Js with 8.10 gears are not going to perform like planes with 1425hp once they are more than a few thousand feet off the ground. Sticking the Allison's with 9.60 gears gives you your 1150hp at 15-15,500ft but you are down to 1200hp at sea level for take-off to lift your load of bombs for the ground support missions.

1200 HP for the take off is no worse than what the Bf 110C/D/E had, or the later Pe-2s. I guess you are familiar with the gun-less P-38F carrying two 2-ton torpedoes, with 1200 HP for take off. Or with the gun-carrying P-38E,D and F rated for two 300 gal tanks (3600 lbs + weight of the empty tanks):

 

[Shortround6]

1200 HP for the take off is no worse than what the Bf 110C/D/E had, or the later Pe-2s. I guess you are familiar with the gun-less P-38F carrying two 2-ton torpedoes, with 1200 HP for take off. Or with the gun-carrying P-38E,D and F rated for two 300 gal tanks (3600 lbs + weight of the empty tanks):

What was the field length?

Amelia Earhart got a Lockheed 10 into the air with about a 4,000lb overload (most of the time, she didn't make it more than once).
You can do a lot of amazing things when the wind conditions are right and a long enough runway.
It also helps if your low powered planes use wings that are 33% bigger.

BTW, the torpedo's were about 1 ton each. US Destroyers used a nearly 2-ton torpedo but it was abut 24 ft long, not 13 1/2 ft.

Trying to point out that most of the time you are trying substitute a lower powered engine for the Turbo engines, there is some cross over at times.
Early P-38s used 1150hp engine when the P-40 used 1040hp engines, Then the P-40s got 1150hp engines but the P-38s (Feb 1942)were going to 1240-1325hp engines, P-40s got 1325hp engines but still with 1150hp at 11,500-12,000ft. P-40s got the 1200hp engines but another 3-4,000ft of altitude in Dec 1942, but the P-38s were getting the 1425hp engines in March of 1943. Granted the intercoolers need to be changed.

With some of the change overs being planned months ahead of time the non turbo engine is almost always going to be looked at as 2nd best regardless of altitude.

P-38Js with better intercoolers were being delivered while they were still sorting out the water injection in the two stage Allison's.
The engines in the P-63 were rated at 1325hp at 54in for take-off.
The engines in the P-38J were rated at 1425hp at 54in for take-off.

 

[tomo pauk]

What was the field length?

Between 900 and 3120 ft, depending on the head wind, elevation, type of material for the runaway, and temperature.

It also helps if your low powered planes use wings that are 33% bigger.

BTW, the torpedo's were about 1 ton each. US Destroyers used a nearly 2-ton torpedo but it was abut 24 ft long, not 13 1/2 ft.

Whoops, my bad - the torpedoes were really 1-ton Mk.13s.
P-38F have had the Fowler flaps, that Bf 110 and Pe-2 lacked.

Trying to point out that most of the time you are trying substitute a lower powered engine for the Turbo engines, there is some cross over at times.
Early P-38s used 1150hp engine when the P-40 used 1040hp engines, Then the P-40s got 1150hp engines but the P-38s (Feb 1942)were going to 1240-1325hp engines, P-40s got 1325hp engines but still with 1150hp at 11,500-12,000ft. P-40s got the 1200hp engines but another 3-4,000ft of altitude in Dec 1942, but the P-38s were getting the 1425hp engines in March of 1943. Granted the intercoolers need to be changed.
The engines in the P-63 were rated at 1325hp at 54in for take-off.
The engines in the P-38J were rated at 1425hp at 54in for take-off.

I get your points.
My point is that engines from the P-40 will still make the non-turbo P-38 a very useful aircraft.