There is nothing wrong with the P-38 that could be fixed by wood or Merlins. First, it was designed to use a wing section which wasn't suitable for a fighter. Second, its configuration compromised completely to allow for all the gear that goes with turbocharging was a restriction on its adaptability. Primarily because there was no room in the central pod after the pilot, armament and nosewheel were accommodated. This is not to say it wasn't a decent fighter for a twin but it was short on potential in any other area. A conventional twin might have worked better. Something like the F7F maybe, or a developed XP-50. Or maybe the right single-engine plane was always going to be better, or a twin more suited to multi-role.
What if the P-38 was made of plywood a la Mosquito?
- Thread starter Razgriz1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
I don't think they thought metal was trouble free, just that it was lesser of two evils.
The push for metal "structure" had occurred in the late 20s and early 30s. A number of British Biplanes came in two versions, one with wood structure and one with metal structure.
They were both fabric covered. The British air ministry at times would not accept a design that used wood "structure" in some design competitions.
Now please note that "structure" generally meant any load bearing components. Wood was still used for fairing out the structural shape to desired aerodynamic shape. Even the Spitfire used wood on the very early ones as an attachment point/interface for the metal wing skinning? I believe that in order to use flush head screws instead of rivets thin strips of wood were attached to the bottom of the ribs and then the lower wing skins were screwed to the wood strips, avoiding the normal domed head rivets?
The push for wood was often (but not always) from the wood industry, and the glue/adhesive industry.
Shortround6
Major General
They never really tried a bigger center pod, one plane adopted for experimental work of a different nature excepted.
Please note that the F7F lost about 50-80 gallons of fuel when fitted out to carry a radar operator so it wasn't exactly operating with an abundance of extra space either.
Two seat seat F7F carried 25 gallons less than P-38J or L, but it did carry more guns and ammo,
Trying to power a conventional twin with a wing area of 455sq ft and the size of the F7f that went with it using a pair of 1100hp Allisons wasn't going to get you a very effective fighter either.
I don't disagree at all but it is a question of expertise and knowledge. You wont get me climbing aboard a wooden 747 but de Havilland knew generally knew what they were doing, and designed within the limits of what they knew. You cant just use "metal" just as you cant just use "wood".
Red 3
Airman
A USAAC squadron was equipped with Mossies for recce missions. Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.
wuzak
Captain
What is your source for that?
As far as I am aware, two squadrons operated PR Mosquitoes for photo reconnaissance and weather reconnaissance from when they received them until the end of the war.
One squadron was equipped with NF.XXXs late in the war.
btw the Air Corps (USAAC) ceased to exist in 1941, when it became the US Army Air Forces (USAAF).
Red 3
Airman
I was reading something about it a few days ago, that's why my facts are a bit sketchy! I've been doing some casual research on the Mossies for fun, I don't remember exactly where the info came from but it was trustworthy as your own knowledge backs up. I guess the relevant bit is that the US did use/try Mosquitoes but didn't like them much.
Red 3
Airman
Not what I originally read but try this:
De Havilland DH 98 Mosquito > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display
wuzak
Captain
They may not have enjoyed the F-8, the Mosquito B.XX converted to PR configuration, but went back to the Air Ministry and received 100 PR.XVIs and a few trainers. They also later received the NF.XXXs.
I believe the F-8 was one of very few foreign designed and built aircraft to receive an official USAAF designation.
Neither the Spitfire or the Beaufighter received a USAAF designation, though they were operated by USAAF units during the war.
I believe the F-8 was one of very few foreign designed and built aircraft to receive an official USAAF designation.
Neither the Spitfire or the Beaufighter received a USAAF designation, though they were operated by USAAF units during the war.
Shortround6
Major General
True but metal was easier to work with from an engineering standpoint. If you had good quality metal (not defective) of a certain alloy you knew what it's yield and breaking strengths were, what the compression strength was and what the bending strength was. It was available in tables from either makers or a standards laboratory, wood was harder to get good figures on as wood is much more variable. Once you start using using composite structures (spruce veneers over balsa cores using glue brand XX,) or multiple layers of wood veneers impregnated with plastic resins and baked in ovens the engineers were in rather strange territories. Information was prepriority in some cases and duplicating lab tests might be iffy?
Because airplanes are complicated structures with complicated loads (aircraft often had multiple loads acting on on piece of the structure in different directions at the same time) even metal was not quite the look up the number needed in the book/chart and make the part to the size specified.
You can get structural strength charts for wood but sometimes they come with little notes attached like temperature and moisture content of the wood in addition to the density of the wood (how many pounds per cubic in of wood at what moisture content gives you strength XXX??
for those who are interested.
https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf
Specifying and testing a certain grade of aluminum alloy is a lot easier.
Red 3
Airman
This is a good overall View of the Mossie and also mentions both the US service and some of the handling issues.
https://www.historynet.com/the-miraculous-mosquito.htm
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
And yet the USAAF bought more of them (through reverse lend-lease).
I was thinking more on the lines of a slightly bigger Westland Whirlwind or FW187. I think a turbo could be fitted in a nacelle as it was in the B-17 and 24, and the XP-50 IIRC. The P-38, Whirlwind and the not-entirely-relevant Me262 were the only single seat twins to see squadron service, weren't they (oh yeah, Meteor.)? The problem is if you make it small it's OK as a fighter but not for anything else. If you make it bigger, give provision for a radar operator or whatever, internal bombs, you end up with a marginally competitive day fighter like a Bf110 or Mosquito. Of course, saying 'I wouldn't have done it that way, I know better than Kelly Johnson' after eighty years is not useful at all.
Kevin J
Banned
A Lightning made of wood would have been even slower in a dive perhaps unsuitable for combat everywhere.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
That would be the result of inadequate training in type.
So if that is true why didn't the B-26 get canned?
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,682
- Dec 6, 2006
That's a thousand more than any of it's metal contemporaries. The A20 and B26 didn't even make to the end of the war.
As to durability the Swiss Airforce kept their ancient Vampires ( wood and metal like the hornet) in service until 1990, a 37 year life.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 753
- May 1, 2016
Another successful twin engine fighter was the F-82 Twin Mustang, though it just missed the War it did perform in Korea.
Last edited:
I agree, I worked in metals and testing of metals all my life and was fascinated by the use of wood, because you don't make it you can only cut down lots of it and select what you want based on experience and testing. In general de Havilland rejected 90% of woods presented to get what they wanted.
Don't flame me for saying this but I believe planes like the P-38 only survived because so much time an effort was put into their design it made it impossible to cancel them and start over. If we compared the P-38 to the P-47 and P-51, the later two started out as diamonds in the rough but the underlying designs were sound and both became excellent aircraft from the D series with the P-47 and the A/B series P-51, the P-38 on the other hand was a continuous re-design throughout its life as each new problem presented itself. The P-51, Spitfire, FW190 and Me109 as examples all had teething problems but nothing that could not be quickly overcome which shows in their production cost around the $50,000 mark and massive involvement in the air war, the P-47 became an expensive plane at double the price but it's contribution in breaking the Luftwaffe's back cannot be dismissed, the P-38 I believe is not in the same league. Lastly, is it worth using two Merlins in a P-38 instead of say a Mosquito, or two Merlins in two Spitfires or Mustang's?, I don't think it is.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
