Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]Supposedly NAA took more time designing for the Merlin conversion than they spend on the whole P-51 airframe originally.
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.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.....
How and where?That big P-63 wing could have held a LOT more fuel than 132 gallons, but.....
The attachment is for a P-39. We're talking about a P-63 wing.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
Right, because they were completely different aircraft...The attachment is for a P-39. We're talking about a P-63 wing.
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.
Resp: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:
*SNIP*
I think it pertinent to remember the part they did play in the ETO,
*SNIP*
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.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
Plenty of room in that wing for a lot more fuel, especially without the wing guns.
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.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.
Again, where?Plenty of room in that wing for a lot more fuel, especially without the wing guns.
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.