Worst US made twin engined aircraft used by Britain in WW2

[Admiral Beez]

We know the rubbish US made single engined aircraft Britain bought or inherited from the French or others. These include the Vought SB2U Chesapeake, Vultee Vanguard and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer. But were there any terrible twin engined aircraft that Britain acquired from the US?

To my reading, the Douglas Havoc, Douglas Boston, Lockheed Hudson, Lockheed Ventura, Martin Maryland, Martin Marauder, Martin Baltimore, North American Mitchell, Consolidated PBY Catalina, Martin PBM Mariner, Douglas Dakota and Douglas Skymaster all seem to be competitive or leading twin engined designs that Britain was lucky to get from the US.

Did Britain get any rubbish twin engined aircraft from the US?

 

[GrauGeist]

Britain was not impressed with the P-38, which they got several of, that had been destined for France.

 

[nuuumannn]

This is another interesting thread from you, Admiral, and will be intrigued to hear what others have to say is and isn't 'rubbish'. Just one thing, the C-54 Skymaster was four engined and was quite reliable, unlike the post war British four engined Handley Page Hastings, which I once read was considered the best three engined transport in the world!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just one thing, the C-54 Skymaster was four engined

Whoops. I meant that to be the Curtiss C-46 Commando, but now realize that while it operated in Burma the RAF never took possession of any aircraft. So, scratch both the C-54 and C-46 from this discussion.

It's noteworthy that seemingly all the twin engined aircraft Britian got from the US were top grade designs. Of course most of these were intended purchases rather than castoffs from the Swedes or French.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens once a decade or so) didn't the British P-38's lack turbo-superchargers? Also something about the engines they wanted spinning the same way or some such nonsense.

 

[Dinger]

I don't think any of the US-supplied twins could be described as "rubbish" - they were all good flying machines. Britain was lucky to get them. Even such types as the B-18 Bolo used as the "Digby" by the Canadian air force put in sterling work. - If there was one type I think the RAF rather regretted putting into service in the bomber role it would be the Lockheed Ventura. Good aircraft, but would have been better used as a maritime patrol aircraft (like the US and Australians used it), just that bit too slow for the time it was operated by No 2 Group. Better to have waited for Mosquitos or B-25 Mitchells.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens once a decade or so) didn't the British P-38's lack turbo-superchargers? Also something about the engines they wanted spinning the same way or some such nonsense.

I wonder if they tried sticking Merlins onto it.

 

[swampyankee]

Yanking out the turbochargers and the associated hardware is comparatively easy, else Lockheed would have no-bid the contracts. Installing Merlins wouldn't be quite so easy.

The RAF also had a current twin-engined fighter, and may have decided that installing Merlins into the P-38s they had would not be worth the engineering involved. I believe a Merlin-engined P-38 variant was considered (the largely mythical P-38K?) by Lockheed but not proceeded with.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Ah yes, the P-38K "Wonder Bird", almost forgot about that (for a good reason).

 

[swampyankee]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens once a decade or so) didn't the British P-38's lack turbo-superchargers? Also something about the engines they wanted spinning the same way or some such nonsense.

Handed engines are pretty much non-existent on modern twins (wander to the local airport and look at the various commuter twins). The benefits may be increased for high-powered aircraft but handed engines are not worth the bother for most applications, as they have increased maintenance costs as the left/right engines need, at a minimum, different propeller blades and engine gearboxes. Interestingly, the P-38s all had a critical engine, as most variants had only one generator and many had Curtiss propellers, which used electric motors to control blade pitch.

The P-38 was certainly the best twin-engined day fighter of WW2, but it's not like it had a lot of competition.

---

I don't think any of the multi-engine aircraft produced by the US were truly bad, although some of the minor aircraft, for example, the Budd Conestoga and Curtiss-Wright C-76, were less than stellar. The C-46 had "issues," but it was one of the CW aircraft that was never fully debugged*, even after years of production.

 

[Tkdog]

I had forgotten about the Budd plane. For a first effort for a company (which I think it was) it is fairly amazing really. Not a successful production plane, but an interesting footnote in aviation history to be sure.

 

[NevadaK]

Well, I'm gonna say the Grumman Widgeon/Gosling. No particular reason other than it wasn't on the Admiral's list.

 

[pbehn]

Rubbish is only rubbish when you don't have a need, cant find a use or have something better.

 

[swampyankee]

Rubbish is only rubbish when you don't have a need, cant find a use or have something better.

I think one could argue that the Blackburn Roc was so bad that it was literally worse than useless, so I'd classify it as rubbish.

Not being able to perform its function because of poor performance, structural inadequacy, or bad handling would fit the rubbish category, regardless if there's anything better or not.

 

[wuzak]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens once a decade or so) didn't the British P-38's lack turbo-superchargers? Also something about the engines they wanted spinning the same way or some such nonsense.

The first 100 or so of the original order would have been the Lightning I without turbochargers and same hand engines (to be a common engine with P-40s?).

The bulk of the 500-odd order were to be Lightning II with turbos and handed engines.

But then the US entered the war and the UK order was taken over by the USAAF.

 

[wuzak]

I wonder if they tried sticking Merlins onto it.

No, that didn't happen.

Yanking out the turbochargers and the associated hardware is comparatively easy, else Lockheed would have no-bid the contracts. Installing Merlins wouldn't be quite so easy.

The RAF also had a current twin-engined fighter, and may have decided that installing Merlins into the P-38s they had would not be worth the engineering involved. I believe a Merlin-engined P-38 variant was considered (the largely mythical P-38K?) by Lockheed but not proceeded with.

Lockheed did produce proposals for Merlin powered P-38s - with Merlin XX (V-1650-1), Merlin 60-series (V-1650-3 or -7, not sure which) and Merlin 100 series (V-1650-9). None were built.

The P-38K had a different propeller gear ratio and new "high activity" props that supposedly led to much improved performance.

 

[wuzak]

Handed engines are pretty much non-existent on modern twins (wander to the local airport and look at the various commuter twins). The benefits may be increased for high-powered aircraft but handed engines are not worth the bother for most applications, as they have increased maintenance costs as the left/right engines need, at a minimum, different propeller blades and engine gearboxes. Interestingly, the P-38s all had a critical engine, as most variants had only one generator and many had Curtiss propellers, which used electric motors to control blade pitch.

The first, Westland Whilrlwind prototype was built with handed Kestrels, and was trialled with handed and non-handed engines. It was found that there was little difference in handling. And since the left-hand Kestrel was specially built for reverse rotation including an opposite hand supercharger, it was decided that it wasn't worth the time and effort.

 

[ddwhitney]

We know the rubbish US made single engined aircraft Britain bought or inherited from the French or others. These include the Vought SB2U Chesapeake, Vultee Vanguard and Brewster SB2A Buccaneer. But were there any terrible twin engined aircraft that Britain acquired from the US?

To my reading, the Douglas Havoc, Douglas Boston, Lockheed Hudson, Lockheed Ventura, Martin Maryland, Martin Marauder, Martin Baltimore, North American Mitchell, Consolidated PBY Catalina, Martin PBM Mariner, Douglas Dakota and Douglas Skymaster all seem to be competitive or leading twin engined designs that Britain was lucky to get from the US.

Did Britain get any rubbish twin engined aircraft from the US?

The first, Westland Whilrlwind prototype was built with handed Kestrels, and was trialled with handed and non-handed engines. It was found that there was little difference in handling. And since the left-hand Kestrel was specially built for reverse rotation including an opposite hand supercharger, it was decided that it wasn't worth the time and effort.

 

[ddwhitney]

Without a doubt the "worst" would be the Lockheed P-322. It was known as the "Castrated P-38." The turbos were removed and the engines were the right-handed Allison V-1710-C15, a good engine but the "P-38" really needed counter-rotating propellers, i.e., one left turning and the other right turning. These airplanes were acquired when the French were overrun by the Nazis. The French wanted the engines to be exactly the same as the engines in their P-40 Tomahawks, hence no turbos, and both right turning.
After Pearl Harbor, most of these airplanes were retained in the USA and used for pilot training, with many being refit with L/R turning V-1710-F2 engines, but still without turbos.

 

[Greyman]

Agreed on the Lightning I and II taking the cake here. I don't think any other US twin-engine aircraft order was outright cancelled after being evaluated.

The main issue being the tail flutter/low limiting dive speed.