Can't be overstated. How dreadful and dangerous those flights must have been. Also there is the problem of hypothermia. Even mild hypothermia will dull the mind and reduce alertness. With TTLs' P-38 the position of the Prestone radiators a few inches from the cockpit and the new less drafty canopy should lead we would hope to an earlier and more effective cockpit heating solution that shouldn't require a great deal of engineering.
Can't be overstated. How dreadful and dangerous those flights must have been. Also there is the problem of hypothermia. Even mild hypothermia will dull the mind and reduce alertness. With TTLs' P-38 the position of the Prestone radiators a few inches from the cockpit and the new less drafty canopy should lead we would hope to an earlier and more effective cockpit heating solution that shouldn't require a great deal of engineering.
OK, guns jamming in 3.5gee maneuvers? Poorly fitted gunsight? WTF?
(That's up there with keeping the 2pdr in preference to the 6pdr & waving off the 76mm & 90mm in M4s for TDs.) Inaccessible fuses mystifies me; just using fuses instead of breakers does, TBH. I'll disagree slightly on pressurization; that's a luxury for postwar & jets. And there were field mods on gun triggers; at least once case I've read about, they swapped radio & guns, leading to some guys trying to talk thru their guns.I recognize it's not exactly that simple, but it's a lot easier than with harmonized guns.
I like the idea.
Except, AIUI, Lindy's main emphasis in re the P-38 was extending range, which will be a) less necessary TTL & b) less necessary in ETO than PTO. That being true, TTL may butterfly away his going anywhere near a combat zone.There's another butterfly that crosses my mind: the 310USgal drop tank. TTL, with the P-38's greater range, will it still happen? (That has postwar implications: fewer, maybe no, lakes racers built from converted drop tanks.
)
Last edited:
I would think that the gunsight fitted in the new windscreen would be the L-3 type, per J & L. The P-38F had N-3.
You make a good point about size. It does mean P-38 units are likely to lose initiative in every encounter. It may mean, however, an enemy will be reluctant to engage, knowing they face the boresited buzzsaw of the nose guns...
The nose cluster also means inexperienced pilots, or otherwise lousy shots, get really good: just point the nose where you want to hit...
(Did I say I was a fan of the P-38?
Used to get off watching gun camera footage of locomotive strafing...you could always spot the 38s...
All true and none of that will change for the early service history ITTL. What may change is the 8AF actually taking some of those lessons to heart.
Exactly. In an early 1943 comparison of fighters it was noted that the P-38 had poor cockpit and it was recommended a type similar to the P-39 system be adopted. That wasn't particularly practical in OTL because the P-39 cockpit heat came from a duct behind the prestone radiator (which was directly beneath the cockpit anyway), trying to do that with an OTL P-38 would, for obvious reasons, be self-defeating (i.e. the heat would dissipate before it ever made it to the cockpit which was the root of the P-38's heat problems anyway). ITTL, however, with the radiators right next to the cockpit....
The L-3 wasn't tested and approved for use until Dec. 1943. I plan on researching alternate/better sights for ATL use hopefully with earlier implementation.
- Cabin Heat/Temp. Control (mostly Fixed OTL P-38J)
- Cabin Pressurization (Never Fixed OTL)
- Automatic Turbo Governor/Regulator (Fixed OTL late block P-38J)
- Automatic Coolant/Oil Radiator shutters instead of manual (fixed OTL P-38J)
- Pilot Engine Control complexity (never fixed OTL)
- Offset Yoke style control column (never fixed OTL)
- Separate triggers for guns and cannon (mixed news on this, it seems there may have been some field modifications to change how the triggers operate)
- Having only a single generator (fixed OTL mid-block P-38J)
- Pilot inaccessibility to fuses (replaced with pilot accessible circuit breakers on the late P-38J models)
- Poor landing light installation (fixed P-38J with single light on left wing)
- Slow initial Roll rate and high Aileron control forces (fixed OTL P-38J-25-LO and all P-38L)
- Addition of 8 degree "Maneuver" setting on flaps (fixed OTL mid-block P-38F)
- Poorly fit gunsight (never fixed OTL afaik)
- Gun's jamming in 3.5G or greater maneuvers (fixed OTL P-38G or H)
- Stiff charging handle (gun-charging handle removed in P-38J as the gun installation was fixed and it was no longer needed)
That is the comprehensive list EverKing. I think you have covered almost all the important features. I'd would like offer two more suggestions to it.
The first one is moderately important. Even with the new design shaped canopy I don't think it could be opened in flight because the resulting burbling on the stabilizer and elevator would still be present. And opening it even a little a high speed is not a good idea anyway. Flying in the Pacific or any hot climate at low level was a miserable experience in the Lightning on account of the poor cockpit ventilation. I'm sure everybody following this thread has read accounts from 5th airforce pilots flying missions wearing only a parachute, shorts and shoes. What a contrast to flying escort with the 8th airforce. But seating in stifling heat for hours at a time is debilitating too even for fit young men. I'm not sure if in OTL whether that problem was ever addressed. Improving the cockpit ventilation with a properly located scoop that won't ingest gun exhaust.
The second thing even though it's not on your list I'm sure you are quite familiar with and I'd like to
mention is the high activity "paddle-bladed" propellers. In your ATL the horsepower increase produced by the P-38s' Allisons is occurring earlier and greater thanks to the better intercoolers. It will soon become evident that a new propeller fit will be needed to efficiently use the extra power. I believe that high activity propeller designs were available in 1942. Lockheed could contract with Hamilton Standard to produce their Hydromatic propellers similar as used on the P-47 and P-51.
Though this would be about a year earlier than OTL if this is undertaken in the late 1942. I don't think it's too unfeasible and it would certainly provide a performance boost for the P-38s being produced in numbers in time for use in the ETO and elsewhere. Perhaps roll-out in the spring of 1943 along with with a few other of the learned improvements on your list. Your ATL P-38-G will be a superb fighter.
Last edited:
At work.
Even though I'm more of an F190 fan-boy.
Learning all this stuff about the 'Mighty P' is really awesome stuff!
Even though I'm more of an F190 fan-boy.
Learning all this stuff about the 'Mighty P' is really awesome stuff!
Yup, I was aware of both and merely forgot to mention ventilation. I deliberately skipped over the paddle-blade propeller because that was a recommended improvement rather than a cure to a real deficiency. As I said, the P-38 already could out-climb just about anything in the sky. The use of paddle-blade props would improve this (and high altitude acceleration) but I think it would be a stretch to call the P-38's climb deficient. I think you may be on to something with a earlier demand for their adoption in the P-38 ITTL since full power settings will become available as soon as the new engines and turbos allow it (P-38G with the B-13 turbos and F10 engines) in late '42 early '43. This might be earlier enough in production for Lockheed to utilize the dual assembly lines to phase in the introduction of H-S Hydromatics with minimal impact to production rates. OTL this is how the P-38J was introduced: the new nacelles, etc. were build for the J model on one line while another was churning out the "stop-gap" H model until the "J" line was fully operational.
thorr97
Banned
A revision / simplification of the fuel system would also be a great idea. It was - and is - poorly laid out and can lead to inadvertent fuel starvation as it requires manual intervention for selecting fuel sources and uses a selector which isn't terribly clear.
This set up is what killed Jeff Ethell and he was a guy who both loved and knew everything about P-38s and he had thousands of hours of airtime. If a highly skilled expert pilot like that got so readily bit by the 38's fuel system then freshly minted shavetails would have it worse.
This set up is what killed Jeff Ethell and he was a guy who both loved and knew everything about P-38s and he had thousands of hours of airtime. If a highly skilled expert pilot like that got so readily bit by the 38's fuel system then freshly minted shavetails would have it worse.
I have his tome on the P-38 handy beside me, with drawings by Watanabe.
The paddle prop is kind of optimized for a certain kind of performance anyhow. It does make me think, tho. What was the state of prop engineering? Were they hollow aluminum blades, or solid steel? (IDK when there was a change.) And how much does the number of blades affect performance? My thinking is, if the hp is up enough over OTL, there might be reason to do 2 things: switch to hollow, & go up to 4 blades (from 3, if that's OE), or 5 (from 4). Hollow means less wasted power (less loss to inertia), more blades means more "pull" (more useable power). Now, this may be getting outside a "better P-38" speculation & into pure fiction, but...
Indeed. It was one of the complaints regularly leveled against the airplane by combat pilots. It wasn't just the difficulty of remembering to switch tanks all the time but the valves were pretty difficult to move.
Thank you! I am still revising information as I continue more research and I am no aeronautics engineer so I am taking of the position of skipping the "maths" involved to avoid creating new issues. Ultimately, this is a work of fiction and a certain amount of "artistic license" is, I think, acceptable.This is a DAMN well researched and thought out story, the technical stuff was at first a bit daunting, but you made it nice and easy for even a layman like myself to understand
The pre-combat P-38's were fitted with Hamilton-Standard constant speed, solid core propellers, iirc. These were switched to hollow-core aluminum Curtiss Electric props part-way into E model production in late '41, which the airplane kept for the duration.
Last edited:
Ch.7 - Acceptance Performance Tests P-38F (Apr 1942)
WAR DEPARTMENT
ARMY AIR FORCES, MATERIEL CENTER
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
April 10, 1942
MEMORANDUM REPORT ON
Pursuit Twin-Engine P-38F Airplane, A.C No. 41-2293
ARMY AIR FORCES, MATERIEL CENTER
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
April 10, 1942
MEMORANDUM REPORT ON
Pursuit Twin-Engine P-38F Airplane, A.C No. 41-2293
Subject: Performance Tests
Section: Flying Section
Summary
A. Purpose
1. Report on acceptance performance of P-38F-1 conducted at the manufacturer’s plant. Airplane equipped with Allison V-1710-49 and V-1710-53 engines and three-bladed constant speed propellers, blade design No. 88996-18 and 89303-18, normal blade angle range 22.7° to 57.7° at 42” radius. Gross weight as tested 14,180 pounds, c.g. 29.85 percent m.a.c. with wheels up; landing gear retracted; wing flaps neutral; cockpit cabin and ventilator closed; prestone and oil cooler shutters in faired position in level flight, wide open in climb; radio antenna (three-wire) in place; inter-cooler shutters faired except when C.A.T. exceeds 50° C. Flush cover plates over gun openings. Mixture control auto-rich for high speeds and climb. Brake horsepower figures in this report were obtained from power curves.
B. Test Results
1. Level flight speeds.
2. Power calibration at 5,000 feet.
3. Power calibration at 21,300 feet.
4. Climb data at 3000 RPM.
5. Stalling speeds, gross weight 13,610 pounds.
6. Determination of airspeed indicator and altimeter installation errors. Airspeed mounted on a mast with static opening 15 inches below wing, 96 inches from wing tip, 24-3/4 inches back of leading edge. Wheels and flaps up.
7. Results of take-off and landing tests obtained by the photographic method will be reported by the Aircraft Laboratory.
8. It will be noted that the same speeds were obtained at 2800 RPM at 5000 feet and 21,300 feet that were obtained at 3000 RPM and with less b.h.p. Torque meters are not available for the Allison engines and it is therefore not possible to determine how much of this is due to loss of propeller efficiency or if the engine power charts are inaccurate.
9. Of specific interest in these tests were the carburetor air intercooling and Prestone cooling as in previous models of the P-38 both were found to be insufficient to meet Air Corps cooling requirements. During these tests the test A/C did not experience any c.a.t or e.c.t. outside of the Air Corps requirements for “hot day” operation under any of the conditions listed in this report.
8. It will be noted that the same speeds were obtained at 2800 RPM at 5000 feet and 21,300 feet that were obtained at 3000 RPM and with less b.h.p. Torque meters are not available for the Allison engines and it is therefore not possible to determine how much of this is due to loss of propeller efficiency or if the engine power charts are inaccurate.
9. Of specific interest in these tests were the carburetor air intercooling and Prestone cooling as in previous models of the P-38 both were found to be insufficient to meet Air Corps cooling requirements. During these tests the test A/C did not experience any c.a.t or e.c.t. outside of the Air Corps requirements for “hot day” operation under any of the conditions listed in this report.
Last edited:
All of the actual contemporary Acceptance Tests I have found for the period in question references the temperatures in Celsius. For example, This One from October 1941, This One from December 1941, or This one from February 1943.
I was a little surprised by this but it does appear the Military was used Metric for temperature at least for testing data. All of the instruments in cockpit would still be in U.S. units.
