Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have covered that already:That was the French/British 322 and we know happened to them.
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.
we are back to to trying to tool up a new factory.Let's say that USAAF went with non-turboed P-38s for sake of getting a lot of them, and fast.
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.
The Generals in the South Pacific and in the Med could not get enough normal P-38s.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.
Let's say that USAAF went with non-turboed P-38s for sake of getting a lot of them, and fast.
The 120 or so ex 322s had handed engines, only the first 20 had the P-40C engines.Can we have opposite props for neutral torque? If so, sure, I'll buy it as an interim or SoWesPac/MTO.
According to whom?p-38s without turbos is just another name for slow, overweight and unmaneuverable target.
Or perhaps ground attack where the need for high altitude performance was not an issue?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.
Some of the trouble with this is that the P-38s never used quite the same engines as the P-39/40s.
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):
Between 900 and 3120 ft, depending on the head wind, elevation, type of material for the runaway, and temperature.What was the field length?
Whoops, my bad - the torpedoes were really 1-ton Mk.13s.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.
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.