The RAF should have kept their Lightning and Cobra contracts but given them to the Kiwis and Aussies for use in the Pacific.

[Kevin J]

The Lightning was available in time and without turbochargers working adequately. It had range, firepower, speed and climb superior to the Zero. The Cobra perhaps without the wing guns but with 2 LMG in the lower fuselage would have made a good low altitude anti invasion fighter again with performance superior to the Zero.

 

[MIflyer]

The early P-38's did not have much range on internal fuel, about 400 miles. The first drop tanks fitted did not help much, being only 50 gal and mounted close to the wing where they caused more drag rather than on the long extensions seen on the 160 gal and 300 gallon tanks of the later models. The Model 322's had the early C series engines with max HP at 15,000 ft and were found to be incapable of maintaining formation with a standard P-38, even at only 12,000 ft.

They only built 143 Model 322-61's, the rest of the RAF order, 524 aircraft, were simply complted as P-38F's and G's for the USAAF, where they were desperately
needed.

 

[Kevin J]

The early P-38's did not have much range on internal fuel, about 400 miles. The first drop tanks fitted did not help much, being only 50 gal and mounted close to the wing where they caused more drag rather than on the long extensions seen on the 160 gal and 300 gallon tanks of the later models. The Model 322's had the early C series engines with max HP at 15,000 ft and were found to be incapable of maintaining formation with a standard P-38, even at only 12,000 ft.

They only built 143 Model 322-61's, the rest of the RAF order, 524 aircraft, were simply complted as P-38F's and G's for the USAAF, where they were desperately
needed.

The first 3 had C engines and as you say crap, the next 140 had F and were okay IIRC. A radius of action of 400 miles in 1942 would have been excellent in Australia and New Zealand.

 

[MIflyer]

I have never seen a picture of a 322 with F series engines. Warren Bodie says that a Lightning I with C series was faster than a Whirlwind and could carry four times the load four times as far, but I have not seen the figures on that.

In Bodie's book there is a shot of ten 322's sitting in a row but it's an aft shot and you can't see the engines. Supposedly the RAF was ordering Hawk 81A's using V-1710C and wanted the same engines for the Model 322's.

And 400 miles is RANGE not radius, which would be less than half that.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The RAAF PR Lightnings were so bad that they had to use the Wirraway on PR missions. The Lightnings were often stuck on the ground with never ending maintenance and spares problems.
I doubt the RAAF would have been receptive to any further Lightnings.

 

[jetcal1]

The RAAF PR Lightnings were so bad that they had to use the Wirraway on PR missions. The Lightnings were often stuck on the ground with never ending maintenance and spares problems.
I doubt the RAAF would have been receptive to any further Lightnings.

It appears that another RAAF unit, 75 Squadron seemed to have better luck according this link:
RAAF LIGHTNINGS 75SQN - The Lockheed File

Sometimes you just luck out, I've been in squadrons where we flew the sorties our sister squadron couldn't fly due to broken airplanes......and once I was in a squadron where you didn't want to wear the command ball cap in public.

 

[Shortround6]

While it does not list the number of aircraft involved this listing of the hours flown by each type of aircraft used by the RAAF 1st photo reconnaissance unit may prove interesting.

RAAF LIGHTNINGS 1PRU - The Lockheed File

there may have been only eight F-4 Lightnings in the RAAF?

 

[Shortround6]

according to this list there were never more than two F-4 Lightnings operating at the same time.
THE LOCKHEED FILE - 1PRU Aircraft Strength

 

[Sid327]

Just what was ''wrong'' with the P-38.

Yes, I know about the limited dive speed.....

I always thought the Allison engines were better built than the Merlin. Yet I have read a few articles about them being unreliable and ''difficult to fly.'' Also about poor or difficult serviceability too.

One of these write-ups was from Robin Olds himself:-

https://www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm

 

[jetcal1]

Just what was ''wrong'' with the P-38.

Yes, I know about the limited dive speed.....

I always thought the Allison engines were better built than the Merlin. Yet I have read a few articles about them being unreliable and ''difficult to fly.'' Also about poor or difficult serviceability too.

One of these write-ups was from Robin Olds himself:-

https://www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm

Nice post, thank you!
I would take issue with Dorr's assessment of Japanese pilots in December 1943 though.

 

[Shortround6]

The Cobra perhaps without the wing guns but with 2 LMG in the lower fuselage

The P-39C did have two .30 cal guns in the nose. The guns weighed around 25lbs each and .30 cal ammo goes around 6-6 1 1/2 lbs per hundred rounds. going to from four .30s to two is going to save under 100lbs.

The first 3 had C engines and as you say crap, the next 140 had F and were okay IIRC.

Most sources say that after the first 3 then next 20 got the C series engines and after the change was made to the F-27/29 engines (left and right).
The F-27/29 engines used 6.44 gears for the engine superchargers and would have had truly lousy performance at altitude. A-36's used 7.48 gears.
The 6.44 gears were the main reason these engines were rated at 1150hp for take-off though. Please note that these engines differed from the long nose P-40 engines pretty much by prop reduction gear and supercharger gear only and had many of the same problems the C-15 engines had. The were F2 engines. The P-40E got F3 engines with a number of improved parts that strengthened the engines.

The early P-38's did not have much range on internal fuel, about 400 miles

at what speed?
An early P-38 (D&E) could fly 410 miles on 240 gallons of fuel doing 335mph at 9,000ft. (max continuous power/180 gph), backing the plane down to about 295mph at 9,000ft gives a fuel burn of 109 gph and a range of 590 miles on 240 gallons. Slowing the plane down to 220mph (true) means burning about 58gph and a range of about 800 miles on 240 gallons.

And 400 miles is RANGE not radius, which would be less than half that.

See above and adjust as you see fit for climb to higher altitudes, combat, and high speed approach and egress. But an early P-38 even without drop tanks had more range or radius than most other planes of 1941 and early 1942. There were planes that could beat it (the Japanese) or tie it but many allied and Axis fighters were much shorter ranged.

 

[Kevin J]

View attachment 551803

The P-39C did have two .30 cal guns in the nose. The guns weighed around 25lbs each and .30 cal ammo goes around 6-6 1 1/2 lbs per hundred rounds. going to from four .30s to two is going to save under 100lbs.


Most sources say that after the first 3 then next 20 got the C series engines and after the change was made to the F-27/29 engines (left and right).
The F-27/29 engines used 6.44 gears for the engine superchargers and would have had truly lousy performance at altitude. A-36's used 7.48 gears.
The 6.44 gears were the main reason these engines were rated at 1150hp for take-off though. Please note that these engines differed from the long nose P-40 engines pretty much by prop reduction gear and supercharger gear only and had many of the same problems the C-15 engines had. The were F2 engines. The P-40E got F3 engines with a number of improved parts that strengthened the engines.


at what speed?
An early P-38 (D&E) could fly 410 miles on 240 gallons of fuel doing 335mph at 9,000ft. (max continuous power/180 gph), backing the plane down to about 295mph at 9,000ft gives a fuel burn of 109 gph and a range of 590 miles on 240 gallons. Slowing the plane down to 220mph (true) means burning about 58gph and a range of about 800 miles on 240 gallons.



See above and adjust as you see fit for climb to higher altitudes, combat, and high speed approach and egress. But an early P-38 even without drop tanks had more range or radius than most other planes of 1941 and early 1942. There were planes that could beat it (the Japanese) or tie it but many allied and Axis fighters were much shorter ranged.

In 1942, I don't care about altitude performance. The rated altitude of the Zero IIRC is 14730 ft.i just want to match it. If I can get .375 mph at 15000 ft, excellent. Range without drop tanks, 800 miles is cool. A couple of Hurricane 90 IG tanks underwing to double the range perfect.

 

[Kevin J]

Perhaps, the word COULD not SHOULD in the main title.

 

[Shortround6]

In 1942, I don't care about altitude performance. The rated altitude of the Zero IIRC is 14730 ft.i just want to match it. If I can get .375 mph at 15000 ft, excellent.

I have no idea what the speed or altitude (and I am talking about 10,000ft and up, not 20,000ft an up here) capabilities of the P-38 with the F-2 engines were, but without changing the engines things don't look good. remember the C-15 engines only had 1090hp at 13,700ft (?) and the superchargers on the F-2 engines were turning a lot slower (supercharger capacity depends on the square of the speed of the impeller). The A-36 with 7.48 gears was rated at about 6,000ft or under. Switching to higher gears gets you pretty much the same performance as the C-15 engines. I don't know if some of the trainers got later model Allisons as replacements when the original engines timed out. Even the F3 engines from the P-40s had a critical altitude of 11,700ft but used the 8.80 supercharger gears.

You might get the speed but the climb would truly suck (as would turn performance as the plane won't be able to maintain speed in a turn)

 

[Sid327]

Shortround6, ......like your posts. Thank you.

It's a pity the P-38 was hampered by a few things, the idea of twin engined safety is a big plus (from experience).
What was the main reason Allison had to play catch-up in the supercharger department?
The engine itself was good as I understand it.
Did politics come into play? (e.g. Government funding) ....I think I remember reading somewhere that funding wasn't available to Allison for development (?) Radials were more of a priority (?) Turbo-charging was seen to be more important (?) Or just lack of interest in in-line engines (?).

Interested to hear your take on this....

Steve.

 

[wuzak]

Didn't the USAAF take-over the bulk of the RAF order for the Lightning (most of which were to be the Lightning II with turbo)?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey guys,

I am not sure how much this would come into play relative to the idea of this thread, but I suggest anyone interested in the early war in the PTO read:

"War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945" by Edward S. Miller, published by the United States Naval Institute, and by Shinchosa Ltd. in Japanese

Relative to this thread, some parts of War Plan Orange might negate the viability of the Commonwealth using the P-38 and P-39 in the PTO, at least in the early period where high performance fighters were in short supply. The parts of the plan I am referring to are:

1. The UK had asked the US, prior to the war, if they could rely on the US for major support in defending the UK's Pacific Rim interests (i.e. Burma, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaya, Australia, New Zealand) during the initial stages of a full scale war with Japan. The US indirectly said no.

2. The USN had no intent to reinforce the Philippines in the event of a full scale war with Japan. (Incidentally, the powers that be in the US did not inform MacArthur of this fact.)

My take on the USN reasoning was that an initial lack of force projection and logistics ability made it unlikely that 1 and 2 could be achieved successfully early in the war. If the US felt that it could not even support the Philippines successfully, I suspect that supply/support of any number of P-38 and P-39 aircraft would have been a major problem, whether directly from the US via ship or indirectly via the UK supply chain. I say the latter because the UK had a difficult enough problem supplying/supporting Buffaloes, P-36s, Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Like I said above, I am not sure how much the above would have applied to this thread's subject. It is easy to apply the retrospectroproctoscope and say this or that of course, but I would be interested to hear your ideas on the viability of US early-war support of the Commonwealth in the PTO. If not in this thread then in another?

 

[Shortround6]

What was the main reason Allison had to play catch-up in the supercharger department?

It wasn't so much that Allison had to play catch up but that RR with Hooker as an employee jumped ahead of everyone else. The Allison engine of 1940 was better at altitude than the DB 601 of 1940 for instance (the Germans improved the basic supercharger on the DB 601E). Then the problems of turning a prototype shop into a major engine manufacturer took precedence of R & D. Please note it took P & W two stages to get similar performance from the R-1830 as Hooker/RR got from a single stage on the Merlin XX.

The engine itself was good as I understand it.

It was a good design that still needed a lot of debugging in 1940 and into 1941. The Debugging was successful, the Allisons of late 1941 and after were sturdy, long lived engines

Did politics come into play? (e.g. Government funding) ....I think I remember reading somewhere that funding wasn't available to Allison for development (?)

funding in large amounts was not available for number of projects. The Gov was $900,000 in arrears to Allison in 1939 for work already done. Allison had to "forgive" this debt in order to get permission to export the engine (take the French and British orders). GM was going to shut Allison down if they hadn't got the order for the P-40 engines in April of 1939. GM had already put a 1/2 million into Allison at that point.

Radials were more of a priority (?) Turbo-charging was seen to be more important (?) Or just lack of interest in in-line engines (?).

The question is a priority for who? The Airlines had stopped using liquid cooled engines in the very early 30s. Wright and P & W were developing their own engines with their own money. For most of the 30s for an engine maker the military contract was something of a bonus, commercial sales kept the company going. In the 30s the P & W R-1535 was the only radial to make it to large scale production that was a result of a government request ( Navy wanted small diameter engines to improve the view over the nose)

Turbos were not really seen as more important but development of turbos (read GE here as nobody else was doing much with them and in fact GE was designing the superchargers used on the early and mid 1930s Wright and P&W engines) was limited by the available fuels. Not only was the boost limited (as in say 6lbs or 42in of boost) but the total amount of compression was limited, that is to say you need to compress the air at 20,000ft much more to get 42in of manifold pressure than you do to get 43in of MAP at 2,000ft. The air winds up much hotter (despite being colder to begin with) and hits the detonation limit sooner unless some method of cooling the intake charge is used.

There was interest in in-line engines (liquid cooled) but the market (the military, read army as the navy didn't really want them) was too small and the army spent a lot of the research and development money on their pet Hyper cylinder project.

 

[Kevin J]

Hey guys,

I am not sure how much this would come into play relative to the idea of this thread, but I suggest anyone interested in the early war in the PTO read:

"War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945" by Edward S. Miller, published by the United States Naval Institute, and by Shinchosa Ltd. in Japanese

Relative to this thread, some parts of War Plan Orange might negate the viability of the Commonwealth using the P-38 and P-39 in the PTO, at least in the early period where high performance fighters were in short supply. The parts of the plan I am referring to are:

1. The UK had asked the US, prior to the war, if they could rely on the US for major support in defending the UK's Pacific Rim interests (i.e. Burma, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaya, Australia, New Zealand) during the initial stages of a full scale war with Japan. The US indirectly said no.

2. The USN had no intent to reinforce the Philippines in the event of a full scale war with Japan. (Incidentally, the powers that be in the US did not inform MacArthur of this fact.)

My take on the USN reasoning was that an initial lack of force projection and logistics ability made it unlikely that 1 and 2 could be achieved successfully early in the war. If the US felt that it could not even support the Philippines successfully, I suspect that supply/support of any number of P-38 and P-39 aircraft would have been a major problem, whether directly from the US via ship or indirectly via the UK supply chain. I say the latter because the UK had a difficult enough problem supplying/supporting Buffaloes, P-36s, Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Like I said above, I am not sure how much the above would have applied to this thread's subject. It is easy to apply the retrospectroproctoscope and say this or that of course, but I would be interested to hear your ideas on the viability of US early-war support of the Commonwealth in the PTO. If not in this thread then in another?

As I see it, the Philippines are the size of the British Isles. To defend it successfully would have taken the entire peace time US Armed Forces. If that had happened then there would have been no support for the British Empire. If that had gone down so would have America. Best to prevent British capitulation, overextend the enemy, rebuild your forces and counter attack.

 

[Sid327]

I believe FDR,

made a decision to concentrate on the European war, to the detriment of the US Forces in The Philppines.
Again I read this somewhere and can't remember the actual book or source. So stand corrected if that's not the case.

SS.