The British P-38

[Just Leo]

So, yet another reminder to avoid blind faith in Wikipedia claims, one needs to cross-check.

Your entry is longer than anything I'm capable of writing without taking a break and walking the dog. And you've raised some good points. One is that Wiki is handy to confirm things you know, but not accurate enough, as a sole source , to learn from. I read a book called Fighters A to Z, originally serialized in the magazine "Air International" in the 1980s, which had a picture, a story, and a spec list, of every fighter that flew. I got the book from the library, and I've disposed of the magazines after re-reading three times, because I never thought I would need to cite references. Keep the book.

Without looking it up, I believe George Carter was the designer of the DeHavilland fighter. That would relate it more to the Gloster F9/37 than the products of the RL Bishop team at DH.

Range specifications are the most suspect of all, because of the variables involved. Ferry range with max fuel and range at combat cruise are two very different numbers. Aircraft have had different internal fuel capacities within the same designation, and the external fuels vary considerably. Engine settings and altitude flown are infinitely variable. Even when figures given are accurate, they are variable due to the natural variance between individual aircraft.

In the end, the reason that other countries did not possess an aircraft such as the P-38 was that they didn't know they needed one. The FW would have given the LW the escort that the LW needed during the BoB, that the Me-110 wasn't. The Ki-83 was an example of a good idea four years after the last minute. As was the Hornet, which, wood, metal or the hybrid that it was, would have filled our specification, even deleting those aspects of the design which were not in evidence in an earlier timeframe. Or a Whirlwind/Hornet blend. If Petter had a different engine, and a good wingman over his shoulder, Bob's your uncle.

And just as a frivolous caprice, what would Herbert Smith have designed, had he not gone into the hotel business?

 

[Just Leo]

I have to disagree that there is anything preposterous in what I wrote. What I think the point of disagreement is due to lack of clarity on my part.


I am well aware of the failings of the Welkin's wing, as we have discussed this at length. (No pun intended.)

I hereby publicly apologize for my remark. It was meant to be childish sarcasm and it was. That said, you do your best work when you're angry, and you have. Your pun not intended made me fall off my stool.
And this response is all accurate and insightful. I have mentioned in other posts that the Whirlwind should have been built to a Merlin spec in the first place, and that the fuel fraction, wing loading and narrow wing chord should have, could have been addressed in a design that would have been a contender, but wasn't. Many great aircraft have been built by design teams wherein the best of the team went into the result, where the chief designer acted as manager and chief overseer. DH had such a team. Westland did not, it seems. I believe, from inferential evidence from many sources, that Hawker's chief designer, Sydney Camm, (Sir), was not a team kind of chief designer, in that he resisted advances in design which could have advanced his products at a quicker pace than was in evidence. But that's a long story.

Petter's EE Lightning saga is, perhaps a story in need of a thread of it's own. Great aircraft, terrible fighter.

Again, sorry, PK, but it was worth it.

 

[PhilKearny]

I had deleted the response, Leo. As you like it, I have reposted. I wasn't angry, I just a bit confused as we seemed to be in agreement.

The Whirlwind was the best aircraft to fill the specification with materials and technology available at the time. Had the Merlins been on the table at the time, the results would have been different. The Welkin's flaws were based on the high-aspect ratio wing. OOPS. The Canberra showed that he did learn his lesson. The Whirlwind could not be modified to meet the specification of power-projection fighter directly, but it was closest to the mark at the time and could have been built to parameters suitable to the task, had it been known what to build before they built it. Foresight is sometimes an AH scam, but DeHavilland built the Mossie with it, and it worked then. A couple of my original drawings at the beginning of the thread show a Whirlwind and a Welkin with Hornet wings. The Hornet's wings used an airfoil from the future and the engines used carburetors of the Bendix-Stromberg variety which British engine manufacturers resisted for the longest time. But the thickness/chord ratio of the Hornet wing, and RAF34 airfoil of the Mossie would, with current Merlin engines, have afforded the revised Whirlwind, a lower landing speed, lower wing loading, better turning performance, and greater internal fuel volume. The Whirlwind still used the HS Mk1 cannon with 60 round drums, but that's an armament challenge which was addressed eventually.
The development and production rates applied to the Whirlwind show that the Air Ministry really didn't want it. What if they did? The British airplane industry possessed a great number of brilliant designers, engineers, and aerodynamicists, spread throughout a number of companies. Sometimes, their brilliance was addressed, and sometimes, it wasn't. This is an aspect which you can't look up in Wiki. Some companies used their design staffs to the utmost, and ended up with the Mossie. Some had a chief engineer who considered himself brilliant, and resisted innovation and input from others which may have resulted in better machines sooner. Some just had nothing. And it showed.
While the Lockheed company had a brilliant team, the P-38 was designed to a specification for a high-speed fast-climbing intercepter with effective armament. Production was not expected to exceed 50 units. Mass production was not an issue, and they would be made as a batch. The turbo's intercooler system was never expected to deal with engines of higher performance, and by P-38G, it was strangling performance. The P-38J with the same engine, but with a chin-mounted intercooler, had virtually the same top speed, due to the adverse aerodynamics of the new intercooler, but the climb rate improved beyond belief, due to the increased power available from the same engine. The use of space from the old intercooler also allowed a great increase in internal fuel volume, expanding the mission capability of the machine greatly. The history of the Lockheed machine showed that foresight would have aided development of the P-38, the machine that was always too needed to be fixed.

I think any point of disagreement is due to lack of clarity on my part.

I agree that given foresight back in the 1930s, Westland probably would have designed a Whirlwind better suited to the needs of the WW II. Likewise, Lockheed would have designed the P-38 with mass production in mind and a better set up for the intercoolers. I was not addressing that point.

The point I was making, was if Westland was seeking to make a better Whirlwind after 1940, there seems to be little chance of success. The Whirlwind was too tight a design to improve and Westland's record at project management was not good based on the Welkin.

Certainly, there can be no doubt that the Whirlwind was too small and complicated to easily upgrade. You, have said as much. Part of the problem was Teddy Petter's design philosophy. I recall reading a story of Petter, Westland's top designer, examining the Beaufighter and feeling there was too much unnecessary space, to which the Beaufignter's designer noted it allowed for contingencies. Petter apparently shrugged this off. Petter tended to design very tight airplanes. This led to the Whirlwind being a very difficult plane to repair, as well as to modify.

This tendency of Petter appeared again in the EE Lightning, another Petter twin engined fighter whose tight design limited its versatility. (This is not to say that Petter was not gifted. The Lightning was an amazing aircraft, as was the Canberra. The Canberra was just more practical.)

That said, for the brief window of time, the Whirlwind was performance wise a very good plane when compared to its contemporaries. However, it offered no huge advantages as time wore on, and it was not able to be easily developed into something else that was bigger and better as was done with such as aircraft as the Spitfire, P-51 or P-38.

I should have been more clear of the relationship of the Welkin to Whirlwind. It definitely was not a direct follow-on. Rather, it was new aircraft based on knowledge Westland obtained from building the Whirlwind.

I am well aware of the failings of the Welkin's wing, as we have discussed this at length. (No pun intended.) It's also in the Wikipedia and numerous other sources. I was also aware that the lesson the wing being learned was applied to the Canberra. Of course, the other failing of the Welkin are listed there and elsewhere.

One of my points was not to restate the obvious--that the Welkin was flawed as an aircraft. Rather, I was trying to raise the point that the Welkin showed Westland had flaws in its handling of the design process and procurement process, and these suggest that Westland probably would not have fared better in producing a super Whirlwind. Consequently, these management failures that appeared in the Welkin development suggest that Westland would not have been able to create an enlarged/improved Whirlwind in any timely fashion.

That the Air Ministry really did not want the Whirlwind or at least did not know what to do with it is most likely true. Even with that aside, the evidence is dubious Westland was capable of designing a more powerful successor to the Whirlwind in time given the performance of Westland in the Welkin debacle. Similarly, Westland's handling of the Welkin (and even the Whirlwind) suggested that the management at Westland lacked some of the skills needed to work optimally with the Air Ministry.

Being able to work with the Air Ministry or other government ministry/agency is an extremely vital skill that is often discounted in the counter-factuals. I believe you have made this point repeatedly, such as when you discuss the role of the Fifth Sealord.

 

[redcoatT]

While we are on the issue of the P-38, could anyone tell me the correct top speed of the P-38L
Most books I have on this aircraft state it's top speed was around 414 mph, but recently I have come across claims it was around 443 mph.
I've been led to believe that the 414 mph was the speed recorded by USAAF tests, and that the 443 mph was the speed claimed by Lockheed.
Which is the correct one for operational use ??????

 

[PhilKearny]

While we are on the issue of the P-38, could anyone tell me the correct top speed of the P-38L
Most books I have on this aircraft state it's top speed was around 414 mph, but recently I have come across claims it was around 443 mph.
I've been led to believe that the 414 mph was the speed recorded by USAAF tests, and that the 443 mph was the speed claimed by Lockheed.
Which is the correct one for operational use ??????

The 414 mph was the speed not at maximum power. The 443 mph was basically the maximum speed Lockheed achieved.

Here's an explanation to the same question from back in the day when the usenet was the place. It was posted in Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military and is by aviation expert C. C. Jordan citing author and former Lockheed engineer Warren Bodie:

>All figures I've seen about top speed of P-38J/L are in the range of
>660-680km/h, that is 410-422mph. In what configuration L was
>supposed to break 710km/h (about same than P-51D)? Painted, guns
>loaded, all equipment onboard? How much fuel? Italian and French
>manufacturers, for example, almost always presented performance
>figures which were 5-10% better than in real life, because they used
>'Reno configuration'.
The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state 414 mph. How interesting.

Consider that the L was fitted with the -30 Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and I'll go into that a little later.

The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP. The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO. This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP. As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.

The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30 at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph.

Warren Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes between 20,000 and 23,500 ft.

Bodie obtained his data directly from Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible source than Green and Swanborough et al.

My regards, C.C. Jordan

As I understand it, 443 mph is pretty much at the maximum theoretical speed for the P-38L airframe.

 

[Just Leo]

While we are on the issue of the P-38, could anyone tell me the correct top speed of the P-38L
Most books I have on this aircraft state it's top speed was around 414 mph, but recently I have come across claims it was around 443 mph.
I've been led to believe that the 414 mph was the speed recorded by USAAF tests, and that the 443 mph was the speed claimed by Lockheed.
Which is the correct one for operational use ??????

Does the P-38 have a non-specular paint finish or is it polished aluminum overall? Is the aircraft fitted with fuel tank and rocket-mounting pylons protruding from the wing? Is the engine at maximum sustained or war emergency power?

The precise answer is about 414 to 443 mph at critical altitude of around 27,000 feet on some days most of the time, unless Tony LeVier is flying it, and then add a few mph. Since most combat engagements occurred at various altitudes other than critical altitude, most pilots were more concerned that it was just faster. Another significant question was the max speed of an Me-109G. It was a far more variable number.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[PhilKearny]

Does the P-38 have a non-specular paint finish or is it polished aluminum overall? Is the aircraft fitted with fuel tank and rocket-mounting pylons protruding from the wing? Is the engine at maximum sustained or war emergency power?

The precise answer is about 414 to 443 mph at critical altitude of around 27,000 feet on some days most of the time, unless Tony LeVier is flying it, and then add a few mph. Since most combat engagements occurred at various altitudes other than critical altitude, most pilots were more concerned that it was just faster. Another significant question was the max speed of an Me-109G. It was a far more variable number.

I hope this is helpful.

The point of being faster is an important one. Because of it's tremendous available power--3450 hp max, through two propellers-- P-38L had tremendous acceleration. With the turbos, the P-38 had large amount of power at most altitudes.

Thus, if combat was anticipated, it accelerate more quickly than its opponents and obtain the advantage of speed going into a situation where combat seemed likely.

 

[Spyinthesky]

Probably no one around to read this but there seems to be a few misunderstandings about the Whirlwind so I will try to answer them.
1) the whirlwind was the fastest fighter in the world when first flown especially at low level and one of the first cannon armed so had lots of potential to develop further had luck gone its way.
2) Petter wanted Merlins for it from the off but because the Merlin at the time of its design was problematical to say the least the AM forced Peregrines on them in case the Merlin never saw the light of day. Ironically the 'safe' Peregrines proved the more problematical and thus cancelled. RR actually wasn't a large company in aero engines at the time and couldn't cope with too many designs of engine to build. These decisions effectively destroyed the opportunity of what was a very promising and potent aircraft.
3) it was held back in the BofB mostly because it was the only cannon armed aircraft, that should invasion occur capable of being effective against armoured vehicles.
4) it was designed as it was ie though the official Escort RAF fighter (as with all then UK fighter designs) had short range because no one expected France to fall and bombing raids thus to have to be over such long range and long range fighters to escort them. Plus the engines power potential forced the tight design people mention.
5) it was sadly delayed by the engine problems and initial canon feed issues. A Whirlwind was in fact sent to the US where it's canon set up helped perfect the Lightenings own installation.
6) Petter proposed the re engining of the aircraft again in 41 but it was rejected, we spoke to to an engineer from Westlands who saw the drawings. The main reason for this was because RR could not build enough Merlins at the time and a fighter that took two was never going to win out against one that took one engine especially as cannon armed Spits would soon be operative which was the main rationale of the WW design. In fact the Merlin suprisingly not that much bigger or heavier than the Peregrine, the lightweight low profile one on the Hornet would have been the ideal version of course but somewhat too late.
7) the above (6) explains why a twin was not contemplated by the AM at that time and answers the question posed in this thread. it was simply too big a waste of resources for a country fighting for its life. The AM were clearly right in that regard even if it nearly prevented the Mossie from happening had DeHaviland not developed it privately. Probably also delayed the Hornet but that's another story except to add the WW had handed engines the Hornet did not because RAF experience was that the logistics and complications they caused could not be justified in a war environment. They were in the best position to judge that not us. The Hornet had an additional gear mech however that did reverse the direction thus keeping the engine the same but the advantage of a fully handed engine too.
8) the WW though only 110 odd were built was in fact the longest lasting single mk aircraft in the RAF during WW2 when they run out of airframes during 43 when it was still operating as a very effective low level Whirlybird bomber where it's speed was still pretty competitive. So to say it could not be developed is somewhat unfair. It had plenty of potential to be developed indeed a jet version was also proposed to get a jet fighter in the air a year earlier.
9) a lot of Westlands problems were that it was a young company only separated from its Petter engineering parent a few years before the war and thus had none of the influence within or comfidence of the AM that Hawker or Vickers had. Equally it was fully occupied building Lysanders which after the fall of France were vital for interdiction work and seafires for the navy. Thus it was deemed they could not take on other work. Supermarine had similar problems but it got around them by being owned by Vickers luckily. Yet remember the Spitfire was nearly cancelled itself and initially only a small order was placed then to be superseded by the Typhoon/Tornado had things gone to plan. Hawker had long been the established fighter company and had the clout to match.
10) the WW was never going to be a long range fighter without considerable modification if even then, so not really comparable to the P38 unlike the Hornet which was persued by the AM, even though only jets were being considered, at the time because it was to be used on carriers in the Pacific against the Japanese.
11) while Eric Brown wasn't a great fan of the WW he only flew it in 42 by which time it had remained in service for around 3 years unaltered which in war years was effectively a decade of development. We interviewed 2 of its operational pilots and they claimed to love it's characteristics and also that most of their fellow flyers did too. Yes it had a reputation for a high landing speed though this seems to have been exaggerated and only really affected some of the shorter grass strips the fighters often operated from, it certainly would have been able to land anywhere a p38 could. Equally most of the over heating occurred on the ground relating to its then ground breaking wing mounted radiators which at least helped development of the similar ones in the Mossie and Hornet.

 

[fastmongrel]

2) Ironically the 'safe' Peregrines proved the more problematical and thus cancelled.

The Peregrine wasnt cancelled because it was problematical it was cancelled because nothing was going to be using it after the original 100 or so Whirlis and any effort on developing it would be wasted. There was only ever the mark I and it ran till almost 1944 the only modification was to run on 100 octane and raise the Boost to give 1100hp at low level.

Nobody in their right mind would have flown into combat behind a Mark I Merlin

 

[edgeworthy]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40933081@N04/5233569371/

Martin Baker twin boom Fighter - Top Secret Fighter

Martin Baker are best known for their ejector seats but late in 1944 the company produced this striking design for a twin engined, twin boom fighter. It is not known if the design was given a project number, or other identification and is known simply as the Twin Boom. The design was to use two Griffon power units housed one at each end of the cigar shaped fuselage, each Griffon powering a pair of 3-blade contra rotating props similar to those used in some late Mark Spitfires and the post war Shackleton. Construction methods and design would probably have followed that of the MB5 while the crew of two was curiously to be housed in slightly staggered twin side-by-side cockpits. There is no real information about potential armament, even what the expected role of the aircraft would have been, or which aircraft it was expected to replace in service. Though designated as a fighter its strange asymmetrical dual cockpit layout suggests something more than the early war concept of a fighter, as defined by the Spitfire or Bf109. Certainly dog fighting would not likely have been its prime function, while as a night fighter there is little indication of how or where the required radar would be housed. Whatever its role, had it been built it certainly would have made an impressive, if perhaps an extravagant sight. While this and other designs were exploring the extreme limits of piston engined aircraft where 600mph was considered feasible, in reality the jet and the war’s imminent end would never allow them to ever have a realistic chance of seeing the light of day, so their potential would never be proved.

The hypothetical M-B is distorted and incorrect.

The engines ordered for the P-322 were identical to British P-40 engines, for ease of parts supply. Not a good reason.

One of the greatest obstacle to P-38 development was that the demand from both the Med and Pacific theatres was so great that production lines could not be interrupted to incorporate improvements. Final models of both the P-38 and the P-47 exceeded the range of the P-51, and no British single-engined aircraft came close.

View attachment 169599

In all fairness the Martin Baker MB3 - MB5 would be a better choice anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_5
They were fast, heavily armed, and had the range sorely lacking in others.

 

[Driftless]

Mods: I know this thread is necro'd from 2012. But it was one of Just Leo's, so can it hang on for a bit?