Which aircraft would you cancel?

[EKB]

You're comparing 2 different operational theatres with very different operating environments which makes any direct correlations impossible, indeed it's irrelevant to the point you originally made.

I deliberately picked Tunisia because it's in the Mediterranean which is where you cited the P-38 would be the answer to the German fighters in that specific theatre. Clearly, the P-38 wasn't the answer in that theatre.

Your reply is mistaken in every respect.


1) The Bay of Biscay is not in the Mediterranean ocean.

2) In late 1942, No. 8 Staffel of JG 2 was based at Brest, France - not in Tunisia.

3) By his own account, Willi Reschke was based in Germany when JG 301 clashed with P-38s. By his own account, Horst Petzschler was based in Germany when he was shot down by a P-38.


I don't understand your comment about "operating environments". Coastal Command escort or fighter patrols was mainly low level work to protect the strikers and/or attack surface targets. Many pilots who flew both P-51 and P-38s with the 9th Air Force gave a frank comparison of the two aircraft in the fighter-bomber role - good luck finding even one who voted for the Mustang as better.

 

[EKB]

EKB, while I can appreciate your participation, I don't particularly appreciate your comment.

I come from a family with a tremendously long line of military service and they had a wide range of friends who likewise served. If I am making a statement about aircraft performance, I can quote a great uncle directly, who flew the P-38 (and P-39 AND P-36) with the Army Air Corps (later Army Air Force/USAF) and *if* the conversation dictates, I may (at my disgression) post his name (as I have in the past).

In this particular case, I was just passing on a sentiment and not statistics/specifications and such, so there is no need to post his name or his JG for your benefit, I leave his name out of the discussion out of respect to him and his family. The same can be said for a former co-worker of mine who was a SS Panzergrenadier.

If my answer isn't what you're looking for, well...too bad...

All Prose Must Be Spare and True!

 

[Juha]

For the UK So many where do you start,

Botha, Albacore, Fulmar, Roc, Sterling, Whitley, Warwick, Albemarle, Battle, Defiant, Lerwick, Sea Otter, Albecore

The scary thing is that they all entered production, there not prototypes, the waste of resources is huge

Hello Glider
I mostly agree but Fulmar did some good work against Italians in MTO and RN needed something to replace Skua, Sea Gladiator climbed rather well but was even slower than Fulmar and lacked range. Fulmar had loiter time and lots of ammo, so it could fly long CAP sorties and so partly compensate the lousy rate of climb, escort strike a/c and act as a recon plane. Ans the Sea Otter, I don't know much on it, other than was designed as a successor of Walrus and had somewhat better performance which didn't mean much. But British needed a ASR amphibian, was there any other candidates and RN probably wanted a amphibian catapult plane. Over 200 were built, so not so big consumer of resources.

 

[kool kitty89]

You have timing and program momentum affecting decisions.

A very simplified time line of British involvement goes something like:

Feb 1940-fabrication of on the 13 YP-38s is started.

March 1940, the British order 143 model 322s without turbos.

June 5 1940, US Approval is given for an additional 524 Lighting MK 2s for the British.

Aug 30 1940 the US orders 607 more P-38s than it had on order originally.

Sept 16 1940 First flight of a YP-38.
April 8 1941, British test a YP-38 at Wright Field Ohio, informally.
AUg 1941 sees 5 of the British 322s roll out the door, this does not mean delivered to the British.
Dec 1941 sees first British 322 arrive in England.
April 1942 has 3rd 322 arrive in England.
July 1942 has the 4th (and last) 322 arrive in England.
Aug 1942 sees the British Cancel the Lightning IIs.

Indeed, hence my initial comments regarding all that being moot with the P-38's existing development timeline. They'd need about a year earlier in timing there to really make this feasible. (otherwise you end up with Lightnings of any sort reaching England in number scarcely before the Mustang I)

Same problem with supplemental non-turbo P-38s for use anywhere. By the time the testing is done and production capacity is there, you've lost most of the advantages of a turbo-less P-38 anyway. Aside from maybe optimizing it as a moderately lower cost (maintenance included), lighter weight alternative to the P-38J/L for use as a low/medium altitude fighter, fighter/bomber, and intruder aircraft with better range and load than the P-47. (plus potential as a ground attack aircraft with cannon armament, especially interesting if the M9 37 mm cannon was fitted with rather useful anti-armor performance as well as ballistics and flight time better matching the .50s and better air to air/soft target accuracy than the low velocity M4 or M10 -and the P-38 should be heavy/powerful enough to carry it, unlike the P-63)

Timing is one of the big things that makes a V-1650-1 (or Rolls Royce Merlin XX) powered Mustang also impractical. Unless they'd started testing a single-stage Merlin prototype version of the P-51 and making production plans for it pretty much from the outset, it wouldn't have been fielded in time to make much/any difference.

Several Luftwaffe pilots have credited the P-38 for out-performing German fighters. But very few American pilots who served in North Africa had any previous contact with the enemy.

Sustained turning ability and ability to turn into a high-speed stall without spinning (due to balanced toque and gyroscopic stability effects) were very useful aspects of the Lightning from what I understand. The high lift airfoil, high aspect ratio wing, and twin prop wash (and maneuvering flaps) all helped with this in spite of the high wing loading and without the loss in lift:drag performance at high angles of attack suffered by the use of slats on the 109. (albeit pulling into a high-speed stall would intentionally be forcing excess drag, but without torque roll issues the 109 would have to deal with)

Roll rate and aileron stick forces would be the big limiting factor for the P-38 prior to the hydraulic boosting arriving part way into P-38J production. (the use of a yolk rather than stick may not have helped matters there either, and I know it made the already cluttered instrument panel more difficult to see)

The B-series turbos weighted some 135-145 lbs (link). Deleting two of them per each 'P-38 minus' saves 270-290 lbs, plus some plumbing and controls/regulators. However, the '(turbo-)supercharging' group in the P-38J weight breakdown is at 613.5 lbs. So we'd probably save some 400-450 lbs vs. earlier aircraft, and those ~600 lbs vs. later aircraft. We should also save a bit of drag because the top of the nacelle would've been devoid of small air intakes, just covered with sheet metal. Also the ram air intake would've gone from the side of the boom to the top of the engine.

You should also be able to retain the smaller oil coolers and radiators of the P-38D-H, reducing drag somewhat there, and with the weight reduction concentrated to the outboard nacelle/wing portions, there should have been an appreciable improvement to roll rate as well.

Once the engines with 1200-1325 HP for take off are to be available, we'd might also add leading edge fuel tanks; fuel system of the P-38J was at ~506 lbs empty, with capacity for 410 US gals.

Older engines (aside from the long-nosed C series of the Lightning I and Tomahawk) should get up-rated take-off and emergency ratings as well, bringing the older V-1710-39 (F3R) of the P-40D and E up to par with the later 8.8:1 supercharger engines like the -73 (F4R I believe) though the maximum WEP boost pressure eventually ended up higher on the -73 in terms of official USAAF/Allison specs. (overboosting in the field went further, but how much detriment to engines there was is unclear; it might be notable that in their cautionary citations towards overboosting, Allison cited only the 60" Hg boost limit for the 8.8:1 supercharged engines including the -39 and -73, rather than a lower value specific to the older -39, though they did mention the use of 66" and 70" pressures in the field was risky had had not -yet- been cleared by testing while 56" was a more solid limit for the 9.6:1 engines due to detonation issues -at least with 100/130 fuel used in tests -I haven't seen any mention of testing with late war 100/150 fuel)

Fuel system wise, the weight gained on the P-38J over H would be more significant to consider. (if it's relatively small, then the added capacity would easily outweigh any light-load performance advantages, aside from potentially producing both and allowing field retrofits like the P-39N did -except being long vs very long range rather than short vs medium range)

Air Ministry didn't have to say no very loud. I may be reading the story wrong but it looks like the request for P-38s came at the end of 1942 (or beginning of 1943?) which a number of months after they (Air Ministry) had "canceled" the order for MK II Lightnings (relinquished to the Americans might be a better term) so the Air Ministry had no Lightings to give Coastal Command and very little likelihood of getting any. Unless they could show an overwhelming need their 'request' would have gone to the bottom of the lend lease stack and delivery scheduled for months if not a year down the road.

By that time, I believe any of the follow-on developments of Gloster Twin engine fighters was also discontinued in favor of focusing on their jet projects. (Wiki lists termination in May 1941) Leaving only the Mosquito and Beaufighter. (neither of which capable of performing the single seat fighter roles the P-38 could and Gloster twin might have)

Now how many people believe that the same number of P-39 or P-40 squadrons with pilots of the same experience would have done any better against the Germans in North Africa?

Certainly not, but 'P-38-minus' aircraft may have done rather well over North Africa, possibly better than the turbocharged instances in some cases (particularly if overboosting was exploited to similar levels as on the P-40 prior to formal WEP ratings).

Another question to pose would be: how well would turbo-less P-38s manage in place of P-40D-Ns and P-39D-Qs (possibly P-63s) if produced on the same number of available engines (ie pretty much exactly half the number of complete aircraft)? The Tomahawk production likely wouldn't change, and perhaps still a run of some Kittyhawks before production could be restructured. (so making the assumption/condition that Lockheed SOMEHOW managed to get the P-38 fully tested and mass production ready to the point of the P-38E by the end of 1940, and contracts for P-40 and P-39 production largely curtailed in favor of greatly accelerated expansion of P-38 production)

Hello Glider
I mostly agree but Fulmar did some good work against Italians in MTO and RN needed something to replace Skua, Sea Gladiator climbed rather well but was even slower than Fulmar and lacked range. Fulmar had loiter time and lots of ammo, so it could fly long CAP sorties and so partly compensate the lousy rate of climb, escort strike a/c and act as a recon plane. Ans the Sea Otter, I don't know much on it, other than was designed as a successor of Walrus and had somewhat better performance which didn't mean much. But British needed a ASR amphibian, was there any other candidates and RN probably wanted a amphibian catapult plane. Over 200 were built, so not so big consumer of resources.

Navalize the Hurricane. It won't cover everything the Fulmar can do but it's better in pretty much every useful way except wingspan than the Gladiator. (without introducing folding wing-tips of course)

That or the Gloster F.5/34. Much better armament and performance than the Sea Gladiator on the same engine. (and potentially the same engine as the Skua as well)

 

[parsifal]

But they didn't purchase them. What exactly is your point ?

It was not within the power of the British Air Ministry to cancel production of the P-38. It was within its power to cancel orders for the type, and that's what it did.

Steve (confused and still seeing red herrings)

Dont bite steve. His point is simple. anything british is rubbish. Weve seen this logic before and its impeccable and supreme in its own misguided conviction.

Best to make an addition to the ignore list, because nothing good or intelligent will arise from a conversation with this individual. Thats exactly what im about to do . ive seen enough drivel for the moment

 

[GrauGeist]

Dont bite steve. His point is simple. anything british is rubbish. Weve seen this logic before and it impexxable and supreme in its own misguided conviction.

Best to make an addition to the ignore list, because nothing good or intelligent will arise from a conversation with this individual. Thats exactly what im about to do . ive seen enough drivel for the moment

And yet it was a Yank that was putting up the biggest fight defending the Tiffy...

 

[parsifal]

And yet it was a Yank that was putting up the biggest fight defending the Tiffy...

Fair comment. Id admit that I am guilty of being one eyed at times, and for that I apologise. I think there is a difference between my behaviour and what we are seeing here. At least I will listen, and there have been more than one occassion where ive realised my convictions are misguided.

I never wanted to turn this into international feud of "them and us", but in my book whats happening here is not a rational discussion. Its a flaming session. Probably worked on me....

 

[GrauGeist]

As for me, I always try and be objective.

Unless I'm in a bad mood, then I hate everything

 

[Glider]

Hello Glider
I mostly agree but Fulmar did some good work against Italians in MTO and RN needed something to replace Skua, Sea Gladiator climbed rather well but was even slower than Fulmar and lacked range. Fulmar had loiter time and lots of ammo, so it could fly long CAP sorties and so partly compensate the lousy rate of climb, escort strike a/c and act as a recon plane. Ans the Sea Otter, I don't know much on it, other than was designed as a successor of Walrus and had somewhat better performance which didn't mean much. But British needed a ASR amphibian, was there any other candidates and RN probably wanted a amphibian catapult plane. Over 200 were built, so not so big consumer of resources.

I don't disagree with much of this the Sea Otter is more like a distraction. Re the Fulmar it did do some good work but I will always see it as a missed opportunity. Keep the ammunition, the range and just make it a single seater. The weight saving alone would have improved the performance by a decent margin and who knows, when the Merlin 60 engines came on stream you might have something that is quite respectable. With the space for the extra ammo you might have 2 x 20mm and 200rpg instead of the 8 x 303, which would also be more than handy.

 

[fastmongrel]

I don't disagree with much of this the Sea Otter is more like a distraction. Re the Fulmar it did do some good work but I will always see it as a missed opportunity. Keep the ammunition, the range and just make it a single seater. The weight saving alone would have improved the performance by a decent margin and who knows, when the Merlin 60 engines came on stream you might have something that is quite respectable. With the space for the extra ammo you might have 2 x 20mm and 200rpg instead of the 8 x 303, which would also be more than handy.

Would the Fulmar make much use of a 60 series Merlin. The 2 stages just get in the way below about 10,000ft and a Fulmar has no business being above 10,000ft. Wouldnt it be better to have the Merlin 32 and 4 blade prop used on the Barracuda 1,600hp at 3,000ft and 1,620hp take off rating. That would have climbed well.

 

[Shortround6]

Taking the rear seat man out plus the extra radio gear and plating over the rear cockpit isn't going to save enough weight to do much of anything. A Fulmar weighed almost as much empty as a Hurricane IIB (12 machine guns) did loaded. loaded the Fulmar
was over a ton heavier (about 30% more). Leaving a 200lb crewman (with flying togs and parachute) and 100-200lbs of electronics gear on the ground is NOT going to turn the resulting airplane into super-fighter or even mediocre fighter.

Using a plane with a new shorter fuselage and smaller wing would do the trick.

 

[pbehn]

Almost every aircraft operational before 1937 should not have been built. The Blenheim was the bees knees when introduced and obsolete at the same time. However without Battles Defiants Blenheims Sterlings and others you dont have any experienced pilots or ground crews. Germany pressed on with many obsolete aircraft through necessity and had no AC to offer in many theatres, ancient transports etc. Russia had many obsolete aircraft in 1941. Easy to criticise the UK who had a war appear quickly and had to do whatever. What was the USA front line strength in September 1939?

 

[Shortround6]

What was the USA front line strength in September 1939?

Somewhere between pathetic and dismal.......or did you want numbers?

P-26 fighters were in operational use in 1940, 3 squadrons were operational defending the Panama canal until May of 1941 for example. Granted there were newer planes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would the Fulmar make much use of a 60 series Merlin. The 2 stages just get in the way below about 10,000ft and a Fulmar has no business being above 10,000ft. Wouldnt it be better to have the Merlin 32 and 4 blade prop used on the Barracuda 1,600hp at 3,000ft and 1,620hp take off rating. That would have climbed well.

The Merlin with the 'cropped' S/C, like the 45M, should also come in handy - 1585 HP at 2750 ft, 1230 HP for take off. Available in 1942?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Available in 1942?

It's doubtful, since the first three cropped impellers (that I've found) were sent, without having had any prior orders from the Air Ministry, straight out to the Middle East by Rolls-Royce, which caused a few ruffled feathers among the hierarchy.
According to their records, Supermarine didn't introduce the Merlins 45M, 50M 55M until 1944.

 

[Glider]

Taking the rear seat man out plus the extra radio gear and plating over the rear cockpit isn't going to save enough weight to do much of anything. A Fulmar weighed almost as much empty as a Hurricane IIB (12 machine guns) did loaded. loaded the Fulmar
was over a ton heavier (about 30% more). Leaving a 200lb crewman (with flying togs and parachute) and 100-200lbs of electronics gear on the ground is NOT going to turn the resulting airplane into super-fighter or even mediocre fighter.

Using a plane with a new shorter fuselage and smaller wing would do the trick.

Your correct and that was my intention, design a single seater with the range and weapons of the Fulmar. That was the missed opportunity

 

[pbehn]

Somewhere between pathetic and dismal.......or did you want numbers?

P-26 fighters were in operational use in 1940, 3 squadrons were operational defending the Panama canal until May of 1941 for example. Granted there were newer planes.

Shortround ...it was in a way a rhetorical question. Many of the aircraft the UK produced were not up to much in the late 30s but they were certainly better than nothing. I think the Sterling was rubbish in terms of the war I am sure Hitler would have loved 2,300 of them same for the Wellington .

Even with the advances in the thirties and the obsolescence of bi planes Gladiators were still officially in the front line in the BoB due to shortage of long runways in south west England.

 

[kool kitty89]

Almost every aircraft operational before 1937 should not have been built. The Blenheim was the bees knees when introduced and obsolete at the same time. However without Battles Defiants Blenheims Sterlings and others you dont have any experienced pilots or ground crews. Germany pressed on with many obsolete aircraft through necessity and had no AC to offer in many theatres, ancient transports etc. Russia had many obsolete aircraft in 1941. Easy to criticise the UK who had a war appear quickly and had to do whatever. What was the USA front line strength in September 1939?

Aside from the turret (which could have been pursued even if the Defiant never reached mass production), what does the Defiant bring to the table? Battles, Blenheims, and Sterlings were certainly useful, and the latter would have been more so had development not shifted towards the thicker wing among other detail problems. (either way a better example of 'could have been developed better' than 'should have been canceled' )

The Beaufighter might not have been worth persuing if any good alternatives had remained in development. There's a lot of open-ended questions to Gloster's twin engine developments, but IMO between the F.9/37 and subsequent Reaper derivatives, a gloster heavy fighter would much better compliment the Mosquito's capabilities than the Beaufighter did. (ground attack ability included)

Same for the Whirlwind: the Beaufighter being too large, heavy, and draggy and the Whirlwind being too small and tight a design with Gloster's twin being a rather elegant middleground much closer to the Fw 187 or P-38 (if more limited in initial fuel capacity).

The Merlin with the 'cropped' S/C, like the 45M, should also come in handy - 1585 HP at 2750 ft, 1230 HP for take off. Available in 1942?

The low-gear of the Merlin XX series should perform similarly and be more widely available while also having better medium altitude performance at the expense of some weight.

Shortround ...it was in a way a rhetorical question. Many of the aircraft the UK produced were not up to much in the late 30s but they were certainly better than nothing. I think the Sterling was rubbish in terms of the war I am sure Hitler would have loved 2,300 of them same for the Wellington.

Same for the Do 217 ...

Even with the advances in the thirties and the obsolescence of bi planes Gladiators were still officially in the front line in the BoB due to shortage of long runways in south west England.

Is that something even the variable pitch prop equipped Hurrican I's couldn't manage? Perhaps lacking a lower altitude geared merlin early on (with increased takeoff power) missed filling that gap as well. (though shorter take-off run may have been yet another attractive aspect of Gloster's F.5/34 and one area retaining the existing Mercury engine configuration would actually be more attractive -also valuable attributes for a carrier borne fighter)

The gloster single and twin engine monoplanes also seemed to be sporting variable-pitch 3-blade propellers significantly earlier than the Spitfire or Hurricane, so that may have been a benefit as well.

 

[yulzari]

Aggh!! There is no such aeroplane as a Sterling. Never was. Shorts did make a Stirling four engined heavy bomber/transport which was later joined by Avro's twin engined catapultable bomber/torpedo Manchester. Presumably they were attacked by Meserschmidts and Fock Wolfs.

BTW. When Their Lordships ordered the Fairey Fulmar they were quite explicit that they wanted folding wing Spitfires but the Fulmar was all they could get.

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround ...it was in a way a rhetorical question. Many of the aircraft the UK produced were not up to much in the late 30s but they were certainly better than nothing. I think the Sterling was rubbish in terms of the war I am sure Hitler would have loved 2,300 of them same for the Wellington .

Even with the advances in the thirties and the obsolescence of bi planes Gladiators were still officially in the front line in the BoB due to shortage of long runways in south west England.

Kind of thought your question wasn't 100% serious but a poke back at the British bashers. Easy for some Americans to criticize the British while forgetting the Americans were well behind them in production in 1938-39. Americans had the luxury of waiting for better designs rather than mass producing P-35s and B-18s and A-18s in order to have hundreds (or several thousand) combat aircraft in 1939/early 1940.