The P-38J and L in the European theater.

[P-39 Expert]

I will be among the 1st to support installation of the 2-stage V-1710 on P-51, and wherever it can give it's service. With that said, the P-40Q is/was not an answer to what 8th AF needs, or any other American AF - a proper LR escort fighter - hence no oportunity was lost with not manufacturing it.



As before - how many 2-stage V-1710s were produced in 1943?
At any rate, P-63 does not solve the problem the USAAF had at ETO, same as the P-40Q. From operational view of the USAAF commanders, P-63 or P-40Q is equal to a Spitfire VIII, while being later for a year or more.

I don't know '43 production. Allison shipped over 5000 with the auxiliary stage for the P-63. Assuming the P-63 cancellation in August '45 that would mean about 28 months of production or an average of 180/mo.
That big P-63 wing could have held a LOT more fuel than 132 gallons, but.....

 

[P-39 Expert]

The Allison coupled two stage/2 speed engine was not considered by NAA for the XP-51B. From a design standpoint, the airframe forward of the firewall could have been modified. That said, NAA was thoroughly pissed off at Allison and only stuffed the Allison in the XP-51J because AAF asked them to do so - probably because they wanted different options to paying RR/Packard for Merlin license. AAF did declare victory with XP-82, permitting only 20 to have the Merlin.

As to 'minimal' changes to stuff 1650-3 into the P-51-1 airframe?
Drop wing 3", re-build lower cowl for carb intake and integrate with new wing position, major re-design of cooling system and lower cowl with design iterations to cure the rumbling problem at high speed. IIRC more than 30,000 hours between Feb 1942 and 'ready for flight' in October 1942.

Supposedly NAA took more time designing for the Merlin conversion than they spend on the whole P-51 airframe originally.[/QUOTE]

 

[David Fred]

My thoughts are that the P-38 suffered from 4 basic faults ... until they were fixed.

1. The pilots had VERY little to no training. The P-38 required a lot of actions to get from cruise to combat ready condition. The early guys were probably shot down while trying to accomplish this task.
2. The early Allison had an issue with the intake manifold that took some months to sorts out; the solution was simple and easy, but they had to FIND it ... and did.
3. The issue with European fuel versus American fuel wasn't understood until we GOT some European fuel. After that, the "fix" was a simple jetting change.
4. The "fix" for the poor cockpit heater was also simple; use an electric heater.

The late model P-38's HAD the fixes are were dangerous opponets to any air force, Japanese or German. The cirtical mach number didn't change but WAY too much has been made of that. Had they been used as escort fighters that mach number thing would be of little import. The idea is to get the enemy fighters away from the bombers and if they dive away at high mach, the task is automatically accomplished. The enemy HAS to stay and fight at the bomber's altitude to be effective since that's where the bombers are. If they don't ... defacto mission accomplished.

The armament was always good since it didn't have to be aimed to converge. I think thay would have done just fine with pilot training and the bugs fixed. After the P-38J-20, they also had hydraulic aileron boost to materially increase the roll rate. That HAD to help.

Obviously this is a "what if," but it's a good one that hasn't been largely explored. I posulate that the late model P-38's would have been effective. As effective as the P-51's? Hard to say. They set a high mark. I think it would depend on who was using them and how they were employed. Had the same people flying the P-51's been flying the P-38's in manner to exploit the P-38's strengths, perhaps the results would have been similar. Had they been flown wrongly, perhaps not as good. The job would have gotten done.

Thing is, P-38 fan though I am, I am ALSO a big P-51 fan. So I wouldn't want to deprive the world of the immortal P-51 to achieve better P-38 success. Tough "what if" to actually wish for.

I'm a P-38 fan as well, my Dad was a combat Marine, 4th Marine Division, Roi-Namur, Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima. And he swore by the 38, and his dearly beloved Corsair. (Although that may have had as much to do with Marine pilots supporting Marines in ground attack). And with the "L" version, they did indeed add 12:1 aileron hydraulic boost. My book, like a kids baseball cards, has a page on each plane, and version, and at the bottom are three or four anecdotal remarks from pilots of the time. Up until the "L", they all shared the same comment "very poor roll rate". The "L" says " much improved roll rate". Still, I doubt that on that front it could never have competed with the P-51, with its clipped wings, and the advantage of engine torque to aid in rolls opposite prop rotation.

 

[drgondog]

Supposedly NAA took more time designing for the Merlin conversion than they spend on the whole P-51 airframe originally.

[/QUOTE]
Not remotely close.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't know '43 production. Allison shipped over 5000 with the auxiliary stage for the P-63. Assuming the P-63 cancellation in August '45 that would mean about 28 months of production or an average of 180/mo.
That big P-63 wing could have held a LOT more fuel than 132 gallons, but.....

AHT says that 3303 P-63s were produced; ~110/mo.
Granted, it was a shame that P-63 didn't held at least 200-230 gals (1st deleting the possed guns and their ammo, so the ribs are designed to allow for another fuel tank on each side).

 

[drgondog]

I don't know '43 production. Allison shipped over 5000 with the auxiliary stage for the P-63. Assuming the P-63 cancellation in August '45 that would mean about 28 months of production or an average of 180/mo.
That big P-63 wing could have held a LOT more fuel than 132 gallons, but.....

Well, if you kill WI you could replace water tank with another 50 gallons of fuel. But, emasculate the engine performance in the process. It was always a desirable fighter for VVS because they didn't care about range, and the P-63/39 was always undersized relative to range.

Tomo is correct that a LE tank could have been installed. That said, For comparison purposes, NAA told Material Command that sticking 16 gallon tanks in LE of P-51B would take a year to redesign the wing and insert into production release ----------------> begin delivery of 'modified P-51B/C with that design into D-Day. Unlike the Fuse tank, the LE tanks would not have been available as a kit - because the entire wing would have been altered with respect to airframe structural analysis.

 

[David Fred]

Not remotely close.[/QUOTE]

Yes, seems HIGHLY unlikely

 

[GrauGeist]

That big P-63 wing could have held a LOT more fuel than 132 gallons, but.....

How and where?

The wing was already packed full of MGs, Ammunition wells, Maingear, Maingear well, Maingear articulation assembly, control surface actuators and corresposnding motors/linkages, not forgetting spars, formers and such. They even packed fuel cells inside of the inner wings at the attachment point.

 

[P-39 Expert]

How and where?

The wing was already packed full of MGs, Ammunition wells, Maingear, Maingear well, Maingear articulation assembly, control surface actuators and corresposnding motors/linkages, not forgetting spars, formers and such. They even packed fuel cells inside of the inner wings at the attachment point.

View attachment 500001

The attachment is for a P-39. We're talking about a P-63 wing.

 

[GrauGeist]

The attachment is for a P-39. We're talking about a P-63 wing.

Right, because they were completely different aircraft...

 

[BiffF15]

The Allison coupled two stage/2 speed engine was not considered by NAA for the XP-51B. From a design standpoint, the airframe forward of the firewall could have been modified. That said, NAA was thoroughly pissed off at Allison and only stuffed the Allison in the XP-51J because AAF asked them to do so - probably because they wanted different options to paying RR/Packard for Merlin license. AAF did declare victory with XP-82, permitting only 20 to have the Merlin.

As to 'minimal' changes to stuff 1650-3 into the P-51-1 airframe?
Drop wing 3", re-build lower cowl for carb intake and integrate with new wing position, major re-design of cooling system and lower cowl with design iterations to cure the rumbling problem at high speed. IIRC more than 30,000 hours between Feb 1942 and 'ready for flight' in October 1942.

Bill,

If you have a moment to expand on the cause / nature of the NAA / Allison relationship that resulted in the above comments it would be appreciated. If it's in your book I can wait!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Navalwarrior]

My thoughts are that the P-38 suffered from 4 basic faults ... until they were fixed.

1. The pilots had VERY little to no training. The P-38 required a lot of actions to get from cruise to combat ready condition. The early guys were probably shot down while trying to accomplish this task.
2. The early Allison had an issue with the intake manifold that took some months to sorts out; the solution was simple and easy, but they had to FIND it ... and did.
3. The issue with European fuel versus American fuel wasn't understood until we GOT some European fuel. After that, the "fix" was a simple jetting change.
4. The "fix" for the poor cockpit heater was also simple; use an electric heater.

The late model P-38's HAD the fixes are were dangerous opponets to any air force, Japanese or German. The cirtical mach number didn't change but WAY too much has been made of that. Had they been used as escort fighters that mach number thing would be of little import. The idea is to get the enemy fighters away from the bombers and if they dive away at high mach, the task is automatically accomplished. The enemy HAS to stay and fight at the bomber's altitude to be effective since that's where the bombers are. If they don't ... defacto mission accomplished.

The armament was always good since it didn't have to be aimed to converge. I think thay would have done just fine with pilot training and the bugs fixed. After the P-38J-20, they also had hydraulic aileron boost to materially increase the roll rate. That HAD to help.

Obviously this is a "what if," but it's a good one that hasn't been largely explored. I posulate that the late model P-38's would have been effective. As effective as the P-51's? Hard to say. They set a high mark. I think it would depend on who was using them and how they were employed. Had the same people flying the P-51's been flying the P-38's in manner to exploit the P-38's strengths, perhaps the results would have been similar. Had they been flown wrongly, perhaps not as good. The job would have gotten done.

Thing is, P-38 fan though I am, I am ALSO a big P-51 fan. So I wouldn't want to deprive the world of the immortal P-51 to achieve better P-38 success. Tough "what if" to actually wish for.

Resp:
There has been little published about these last P-38 variants, so many people aren't aware that Lockheed did get it fixed. I know of at least one FG that deployed (late '43?) to England that received no training on two engine planes, much less fighters. Their first indication was when the pilots walked out to the Tarmac and saw the parked P-38s. I did read where a Luftwaffe pilot witnessed some manuvers by P-38s late in the war, where he exclaimed: "They aren't supposed to be able to do that!" I think it pertinent to remember the part they did play in the ETO, as they held the line, until the Mustang arrived and the P-47's 'range' was maximized. They did continue to play a part in 'shuttle' escorts near the end of combat.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Resp:
*SNIP*
I think it pertinent to remember the part they did play in the ETO,
*SNIP*

I doubt any of us here will disagree with that statement.

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,

Just found out my retired USMC bud down the streets Father In Law flew P38's and B26's. Will let you know what he has to pass along when I get to speak with him.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

If you have a moment to expand on the cause / nature of the NAA / Allison relationship that resulted in the above comments it would be appreciated. If it's in your book I can wait!

Cheers,
Biff

Biff - the dominant issue is a.) they were always late on deliveries, causing the NA-73X/Mustang I deliveries to RAF to slide, and b.) they made significant changes without alerting NAA, also causing re-work at NAA and see a.) above.

In fairness, Material Command were in Allison's shorts and caused many of the aforementioned changes

 

[P-39 Expert]

Right, because they were completely different aircraft...

View attachment 500017

Plenty of room in that wing for a lot more fuel, especially without the wing guns.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Resp:
There has been little published about these last P-38 variants, so many people aren't aware that Lockheed did get it fixed. I know of at least one FG that deployed (late '43?) to England that received no training on two engine planes, much less fighters. Their first indication was when the pilots walked out to the Tarmac and saw the parked P-38s. I did read where a Luftwaffe pilot witnessed some manuvers by P-38s late in the war, where he exclaimed: "They aren't supposed to be able to do that!" I think it pertinent to remember the part they did play in the ETO, as they held the line, until the Mustang arrived and the P-47's 'range' was maximized. They did continue to play a part in 'shuttle' escorts near the end of combat.

Lockheed did get it fixed, those L models would have handled about any escort role including 8thAF. But the models before the J-25 just had too many problems and the L didn't start production until after D-Day and by then the LW was done.

 

[GrauGeist]

Plenty of room in that wing for a lot more fuel, especially without the wing guns.

Again, where?
There's already fuel cells installed in areas that won't affect the aircraft's performance (i.e.: roll rate, etc.) or compromise the wing's structural strength. There's really no room left. You can't just arbitrarily stuff a tank here and there without some sort of trade-off. Additional tanks means additional weight with the tank, interior baffles and self sealing compound. Then add the weight of the fuel itself and then pumps, plumbing and such.

And removing the guns? Then what does the pilot do, use the centerline cannon as it's sole armament?

Bell's engineers were pretty clever people, we can pretty much assume that they placed as much fuel capacity in the wings as was practical.

 

[GregP]

I think the P-40Q WAS an answer to MANY U.S. needs during WWII. It would have been a very welcome addition / replacement everywhere the P-40 was flying in wartime service, and we flew them from before the war started until after the war ended. Had it been possible to extend the range, it could have been useful in places other than where the P-40 was the mainstay.

I am not saying it would have replaced something and become a war winner. I am saying it was head and shoulders better than ANY standard P-40, and we flew those in every theater of war right up to and past the end of the war. So, Yes, the P-40Q would have very useful and welcome by any P-40 command.

Regarding Post #275, good synopsis. Had Allison been instructed to work on a 2-stage integral supercharger, then they would have done so or at least tried.

I have been part of Motorola in the past, we we were asked to so so many things in electronics by the government that caused issues with other things that it isn't even funny. It would not surprise me in the least to find out things were the same in WWII.

 

[BiffF15]

I think the P-40Q WAS an answer to MANY U.S. needs during WWII. It would have been a very welcome addition / replacement everywhere the P-40 was flying in wartime service, and we flew them from before the war started until after the war ended. Had it been possible to extend the range, it could have been useful in places other than where the P-40 was the mainstay.

I am not saying it would have replaced something and become a war winner. I am saying it was head and shoulder better than ANY standard P-40, and we flew those in every theater of war right up to and past the end of the war. So, Yes, the P-40Q would have very useful and welcome by any P-40 command.

Regarding Post #275, good synopsis. Had Allison been instructed to work on a 2-stage integral supercharger, then they would have done so or at least tried.

I have been part of Motorola in the past, we we were asked to so so many things in electronics by the government that caused issue with other things that it isn't even funny. It would not surprise me in the least to find out things were the same in WWII.

Greg,

The question is why didn't the Army go with the Q. Was it costs to manufacture, or not enough return on investment once done (lives saved for increased performance)? IMHO once the Merlin powered Mustang started flying in ETO then in Asia it would be tough to justify spending any additional money on an airplane that couldn't literally compete with one you already had in production (P38K comes to mind although not exactly in the same category). I really like the looks of the Q and would love to see them flying today, and it was an improvement in performance back in the day.

Cheers,
Biff