Better P-38

Carl Schwamberger said:
I'd druther see a better P38
Me, too, but I didn't want to start two "better" threads within seconds.:p So, waiting until now...:p

First thing is cabin heat. Second, the dive flaps (compressibility). Switching to the core rads (per P-38J) early would be good. Wing leading-edge fuel tanks would be good from the start, too.

Best thing: avoid the stupid cross-country stunt flight:mad: & advance the program about a year....
 
An assortment of what-ifs, starting with my disdain for the coolant rads. Wing leading edge rads would have used internal fuel volume, but using Merlins would allow some boom tankage to ameliorate the loss. The second source argument is valid, since Lightnings were always in demand, and production was deemed more important than improvement. Even low-level pressurization and valid cockpit heating would have improved the life and effectiveness of pilots, and prompt installation of the dive flaps would have saved some. Many improvements were not done because they would slow down production. The simplest answer is more production. Would you prefer more Lightnings, or the Vultee Vengeance?

Lightnings.png
 
A bit of trivia concerning Merlin engine production. Arthur Herman in his book 'Freedoms Forge' describes how in 1941 Ford Motor company was asked about producing the Merlin engine. Edsel Ford, then then nominal CEO of Ford MoCo, agreed and started his staff working up his side of the contract and cost estimates. Then old Henry saw the proposal come across his desk. He threw a fit and refused to allow his company to build anything "English". He swore he would 'never build a single weapon for those Jewish bankers in England'. he refused to listen to arguments the engines would mostly be sold to the USAAF. In the following years Edsel & the other managers had to learn to lie to Henry & keep the tell tale documents off his desk in order to nail down a number of other British related contracts.

A small second tier motor parts manufactor known as Allison was approached and soon negotiated a contract to build the engines.
 
Just Leo said:
An assortment of what-ifs
I like the trimotor.:p

I also think your NF variant made enormously more sense than the P-61.:eek:

Here's a wild one: Jet Lightning, with a pair of I-16s in the fuselage, & fuel in the booms.
Just Leo said:
The second source argument is valid, since Lightnings were always in demand, and production was deemed more important than improvement.
Agreed. Even a decision by AAF early on to order more would have had Lockheed change from hand-build to production line before they did OTL.
Just Leo said:
Even low-level pressurization and valid cockpit heating would have improved the life and effectiveness of pilots
Unquestionably.

Also, I oppose a switch to Merlins for a couple of reasons: I'd rather they go elsewhere, & I don't find the performance advantage great enough (unlike the P-51).
 
Last edited:
A small second tier motor parts manufactor known as Allison was approached and soon negotiated a contract to build the engines.

I think your getting oldsheimer's, same as me. You meant to say "The Packard Motor Company". They went to a lot of trouble converting the engines for mass production, and achieved far higher production rates per plant than the British, who still out-produced them by dint of more time and more plants. Bendix-Stromberg pumper carbs were a lot easier to get at Packard. Rolls called them Rolls-Royce/Stromberg.
 
Also, I oppose a switch to Merlins for a couple of reasons: I'd rather they go elsewhere, & I don't find the performance advantage great enough (unlike the P-51).

I don't find any problem with the Allisons as well. However, I hate the radiators in the booms. They are terribly inefficient. They just hang out in the wind, at a stage where the Meredith Effect was a proven concept. However, I haven't been able to design a pretty installation, having booms with jet pipes at the end for heat efflux. I settled for leading edge rads, Mossie-style, which bites into internal fuel tankage, meaning I need the turbo gone to make space. An eternal circle, just like life. It was a default solution to a problem, that's all.

I think the Lightning's critical Mach number precludes any turbo-jet conversions.
 
I think your getting oldsheimer's, same as me. You meant to say "The Packard Motor Company". They went to a lot of trouble converting the engines for mass production, and achieved far higher production rates per plant than the British, who still out-produced them by dint of more time and more plants. Bendix-Stromberg pumper carbs were a lot easier to get at Packard. Rolls called them Rolls-Royce/Stromberg.

I'll check the book. One of the points Herman made was small specialized companies often were most qualified to design and set up production so they snaged the initial contract, but much or a majority of rote production was often subcontracted by larger companies with the deeper pockets and larger production floor managment cadre. Herman claims Kundsen pushed this practice hard as he saw the inefficiency of letting contracts be held exclusively by single manufactors.
 
One other option crosses my mind: fuel injection. Possible to improve range with it (more accurate metering), as well as performance.
 
Many improvements were not done because they would slow down production. The simplest answer is more production. Would you prefer more Lightnings, or the Vultee Vengeance?
Personally I would prefer more Vultee Vengances combined with direct contact forward observation staff and give proper close and accurate close air support instead of (brave) fighters lobbing bombs and rockets in the general dirction of the enemy. But this would be another thread so I will leave it alone.
 
How practical might it be to run a driveshaft between the two props, just ahead of the engines, and set up a gearbox/clutch arrangement, so either engine can be shut down and the other one drives both propellers?

It would cost weight, add to the price, and be another point of possible failure. But the idea is, to increase range and endurance by saving fuel for long somewhat slow cruises.

Would the added weight impair performance, or cut into fuel so much it negates the advantage?

Some time back some other P-38 thread introduced me to a long thread somewhere else arguing that the USAAF didn't have to wait for the Mustang to enable long-range escorts for bomber strikes, the P-38 was already good enough to do the job, it's just that Army politics didn't want to use it for that purpose. Increasing range further, if it doesn't impair combat performance significantly, might have further encouraged such uses if the attitude were different.

And of course in the Pacific war, range and endurance were golden things.
 
Shevek23 said:
How practical might it be to run a driveshaft between the two props, just ahead of the engines, and set up a gearbox/clutch arrangement, so either engine can be shut down and the other one drives both propellers?

It would cost weight, add to the price, and be another point of possible failure. But the idea is, to increase range and endurance by saving fuel for long somewhat slow cruises.

Would the added weight impair performance, or cut into fuel so much it negates the advantage?
Adding weight & complexity to no (or minimal) visible benefit.
Shevek23 said:
Some time back some other P-38 thread introduced me to a long thread somewhere else arguing that the USAAF didn't have to wait for the Mustang to enable long-range escorts for bomber strikes, the P-38 was already good enough to do the job, it's just that Army politics didn't want to use it for that purpose. Increasing range further, if it doesn't impair combat performance significantly, might have further encouraged such uses if the attitude were different.

And of course in the Pacific war, range and endurance were golden things.
IDK about politics. There were issues with crew confidence (the twin engines were a problem with the inexperienced; if one failed on takeoff, the usual response to engine failure would kill you:eek: til Tony LeVier showed how to do it right) & with engines (backfiring & carb icing IIRC), plus the refridgerator in the cockpit.:rolleyes: Plus the lack of dive flaps meant diving at full power was liable to be lethal...:eek: Plus the tendency to want to dogfight with 109s & 190s, when (as PTO would show) using the P-38s vastly superior climb ability (for which she'd been designed, recall) meant "boom & zoom" was the correct option...:rolleyes:
 
Top