Portucale
Banned
I believe Halloween spirit continues on 1 November, All Saints' Day and today 2 November, All Souls' Day.
The bomber interception role was not very important by 1944. Maybe intercepting V-1 flying bombs. The 37mm wasn't very effective against fighters. The 37mm gun in the MIG-15 wasn't as effective as the faster firing 23mm cannon was, and it was dropped in later MIG designs
That makes it marginally acceptable, but honestly, the customizer & rodder in me thinks about all the perfectly good P-38s that could be kept flying by cannibalizing those "wrecks".
A bunch of people still needed to be shot.
The link posted below will take the reader to a NACA document that was issued in October 1940. Possibly some readers have seen this document before. It describes in great detail the results obtained by comprehensive wind tunnel testing of 11 mostly modern at the time American Army and Navy single engined combat airplanes. The testing was done at the Langley full scale wind tunnel. I believe the testing was started at the end of 1939 and took until the September 1940 but I'm not certain of the exact start date.
The interesting aspect of the test program was the detailed look at drag reduction and compressibility effects across 11 different, mostly high speed for the time, airplanes. Many design improvements and advancements were identified in this testing program. The tested airplanes are not listed by name in the report but their diagrams and illustrations leave no doubt at to which planes they were.
The big noticeable absence is the P-38. As no examples of the Lightning existed during the time of this wind tunnel test program. Another unfortunate result of the loss of the XP-38 in February 1939 and long gap until the first YP-38 flight in September 1940 too late for this NACA test program. What a lost opportunity. If NACA could have put the XP-38 through the same comprehensive test regimen what might they have discovered and identified about the P-38's compressibility problem back in 1940? What other drag reduction improvements would have been identified as well? Would this have led to an earlier discovery and recommendation of the NACA improvements described in this storyline giving Lockheed a lot more lead time to work up an EverKing type NACA redesign of the P-38 while having an extra year to work with?
The NACA report states it's an analysis of single-engined aircraft. I would guess that was more of a descriptor then a fixed criteria. NACA was interested in testing all high speed military and naval aircraft then available. At the time the test program began they were no twin engined fighters to test. If the XP-38 still existed would the officials at NACA have refused to test the P-38 because it had two engines? It wasn't too large for the full scale wind tunnel. I think NACA would have included the P-38 if one had been available. I believe most of the persistent problems and delayed fixes and refinements on the P-38 can be traced back to the unfortunate ending to that cross-country flight in February 1939.
Here is the link to the NACA document. http://contrails.free.fr/temp/naca-wr-l-489.pdf
The interesting aspect of the test program was the detailed look at drag reduction and compressibility effects across 11 different, mostly high speed for the time, airplanes. Many design improvements and advancements were identified in this testing program. The tested airplanes are not listed by name in the report but their diagrams and illustrations leave no doubt at to which planes they were.
The big noticeable absence is the P-38. As no examples of the Lightning existed during the time of this wind tunnel test program. Another unfortunate result of the loss of the XP-38 in February 1939 and long gap until the first YP-38 flight in September 1940 too late for this NACA test program. What a lost opportunity. If NACA could have put the XP-38 through the same comprehensive test regimen what might they have discovered and identified about the P-38's compressibility problem back in 1940? What other drag reduction improvements would have been identified as well? Would this have led to an earlier discovery and recommendation of the NACA improvements described in this storyline giving Lockheed a lot more lead time to work up an EverKing type NACA redesign of the P-38 while having an extra year to work with?
The NACA report states it's an analysis of single-engined aircraft. I would guess that was more of a descriptor then a fixed criteria. NACA was interested in testing all high speed military and naval aircraft then available. At the time the test program began they were no twin engined fighters to test. If the XP-38 still existed would the officials at NACA have refused to test the P-38 because it had two engines? It wasn't too large for the full scale wind tunnel. I think NACA would have included the P-38 if one had been available. I believe most of the persistent problems and delayed fixes and refinements on the P-38 can be traced back to the unfortunate ending to that cross-country flight in February 1939.
Here is the link to the NACA document. http://contrails.free.fr/temp/naca-wr-l-489.pdf
Last edited:
A quick read through that and something quite interesting caught my eye. In trying to ID the aircraft involved in the tests I kept getting stuck at Airplane 11 then I saw the "Rear underslung Prestone radiator installation for Airplane 11" in Figure 14 (page 61 of the PDF) and it struck me that it is likely an earlier development of what would become the XP-46. This also means that it is very possible this particular study/report was foundational in the development of NAA NA-73X (XP-51)! What a great historic gem!
As best I can tell, the airplanes are:
As best I can tell, the airplanes are:
- Brewster F2A Buffalo
- Grumman F4F-2 (early development version)
- Grumman F3F (I've seen it retroactively called the "Kitty Cat")
- Vought SB2U Vindicator
- Douglas SBD Dauntless
- Naval Aircraft Factory SBN
- Curtis P-40 Tomahawk
- Seversky XP-41
- Bell XP-39 Airacobra (with early radiator installation and supercharger intake)
- Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat
- Curtis XP-46 (early development variant)
Last edited:
It makes me believe in time travel. I know some Mustang puke went back and sabotaged that cross country flight just to allow the P-51 to be born.
Just in case anyone wants a not-lego P-38 for Christmas
The F4U/AU-1 Corsair looks pretty sick also.
The F4U/AU-1 Corsair looks pretty sick also.
It's an imaginative model but I don't think it would've done very well in the Langley wind tunnel.
Here is an interesting Youtube video of the OTL P-38M Night Fighter. Notice the radar operator struggling to wedge himself in that cramped rear cockpit. Also one can get a good look at the radar pod and the two sets of receiving antennas mounted out under the outer wings. A bit draggy I'd think. The flash guards on the gun muzzles also add drag but do help reduce the damage to the pilots' night vision though only partially. Could there have a been a better approach to developing a Night Lightning?
I think another possibly better way to build a night fighter that would have worked well for the OTL P-38 as well as the ATL NACA P-38 would have utilized the redesigned noses that were developed for P-38 Droop Snoot and Pathfinder missions. The modification required the removal of all guns and magazines from the nose. But allowed for the radar operator and an H2X radar in the nose for the Pathfinder modification. Could an air intercept radar of some type in service in 1943 or 1944 been installed in the space used for the H2X ground mapping radar? Could all the antennae and hardware have been mounted internally? Or at least located on the front of the nose?
P-38 Pathfinder with a ground mapping radar set.
Another look at a Pathfinder outfitted P-38.
Both photos from these websites. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/ww2--185843922101758828/
This approach would require relocating the armament. And I think fitting a different armament set better suited for the night fighter and intruder missions. Sudden brief ambushes. Fitting cannon into the lower belly of the centre nacelle is the only practical location I think of. And likely there would be room for only two. One on each side. Whether with the OTL nacelle or the slightly longer ATL NACA nacelle. There are a lot of equipment and control lines situated in there already so rearranging things enough to fit the breaches along the inside of the lower skin and frames and placing large enough magazines for a sufficient ammunition load would be challenging.
Also there is the difficulty of keeping the gun barrels inside the nacelle at least for most of their length to reduce drag and over cooling. The barrels would reach past the nose gear bay just a foot or so on either side of the nose gear door.
There are some advantages to this arrangement. It eliminates the need for flash guards as the gun muzzles are not visible to the pilot. Whether are not tracer rounds should still be used with cannons I would guess that would be determined by tactical experience. And it allows use of more powerful guns.
And which cannons? As previously stated I think it would only be possible to fit two. For the USAAF at the time I thinks that means either the HS 20mm or the M4 37mm cannon. The 37 mm had been improved somewhat for the P-39 by 1943 and onward. A slightly higher rate of fire and better reliability. Still has the low muzzle velocity but maybe that's not so critical when closing to less the 200 yards on a non-maneuvering (at the moment) target.
The 20mms' reliability had been improved a little by then too and certainly U.S. P-38 ground crews were familiar with maintaining and arming it. It would have about four times the rate of fire of the 37mm and a higher muzzle velocity. And likely a larger ammo load out. If not necessarily a longer length of firing time. Depending on the room available for the magazines. But OTOH the 37mm has that large high explosive shell. Only one or two hits from that shell are likely to be sufficient.
If night fighter missions are usually sudden ambushes, where the pilot and radar operator stalk the E/A and close as closely as they dare, likely less then 200 yards. And then they'd open fire on a target that will, if the E/A pilot is still able to he'll immediately attempt to start violently throwing the airplane around. Though the airplane may not be air worthy by that point. This means the night fighter crew would likely only have one brief chance at destroying their target. So they must hit the E/A with weapons that can destroy or severely damage it with one pass. What would be the better choice for a two cannon armament fit for this redesigned P-38 Night Fighter? Would my purported P-38 Night Lightning either OTL or NACA TL have been an improvement over the actual OTL P-38M?
I think another possibly better way to build a night fighter that would have worked well for the OTL P-38 as well as the ATL NACA P-38 would have utilized the redesigned noses that were developed for P-38 Droop Snoot and Pathfinder missions. The modification required the removal of all guns and magazines from the nose. But allowed for the radar operator and an H2X radar in the nose for the Pathfinder modification. Could an air intercept radar of some type in service in 1943 or 1944 been installed in the space used for the H2X ground mapping radar? Could all the antennae and hardware have been mounted internally? Or at least located on the front of the nose?
Both photos from these websites. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/ww2--185843922101758828/
This approach would require relocating the armament. And I think fitting a different armament set better suited for the night fighter and intruder missions. Sudden brief ambushes. Fitting cannon into the lower belly of the centre nacelle is the only practical location I think of. And likely there would be room for only two. One on each side. Whether with the OTL nacelle or the slightly longer ATL NACA nacelle. There are a lot of equipment and control lines situated in there already so rearranging things enough to fit the breaches along the inside of the lower skin and frames and placing large enough magazines for a sufficient ammunition load would be challenging.
Also there is the difficulty of keeping the gun barrels inside the nacelle at least for most of their length to reduce drag and over cooling. The barrels would reach past the nose gear bay just a foot or so on either side of the nose gear door.
There are some advantages to this arrangement. It eliminates the need for flash guards as the gun muzzles are not visible to the pilot. Whether are not tracer rounds should still be used with cannons I would guess that would be determined by tactical experience. And it allows use of more powerful guns.
And which cannons? As previously stated I think it would only be possible to fit two. For the USAAF at the time I thinks that means either the HS 20mm or the M4 37mm cannon. The 37 mm had been improved somewhat for the P-39 by 1943 and onward. A slightly higher rate of fire and better reliability. Still has the low muzzle velocity but maybe that's not so critical when closing to less the 200 yards on a non-maneuvering (at the moment) target.
The 20mms' reliability had been improved a little by then too and certainly U.S. P-38 ground crews were familiar with maintaining and arming it. It would have about four times the rate of fire of the 37mm and a higher muzzle velocity. And likely a larger ammo load out. If not necessarily a longer length of firing time. Depending on the room available for the magazines. But OTOH the 37mm has that large high explosive shell. Only one or two hits from that shell are likely to be sufficient.
If night fighter missions are usually sudden ambushes, where the pilot and radar operator stalk the E/A and close as closely as they dare, likely less then 200 yards. And then they'd open fire on a target that will, if the E/A pilot is still able to he'll immediately attempt to start violently throwing the airplane around. Though the airplane may not be air worthy by that point. This means the night fighter crew would likely only have one brief chance at destroying their target. So they must hit the E/A with weapons that can destroy or severely damage it with one pass. What would be the better choice for a two cannon armament fit for this redesigned P-38 Night Fighter? Would my purported P-38 Night Lightning either OTL or NACA TL have been an improvement over the actual OTL P-38M?
It might be silly or not even possible but how many of these encounters were one shot only affairs? Would it have been possible to simply put some 2.75 rockets in a breakaway aerodynamic shroud that would allow the exhaust to exit along the fuselage. Once the missiles are gone it would be a "flow throw" shroud. 6 of these rockets at close range might be devastating. It would be a one punch and done but against bombers... It would more than likely require more engineering than I can currently envision.
If your shroud and rockets are on the nose then where is the radar to be placed?
marathag
Banned
I wonder how close you'd have to get for an accurate shot with bazookas? The rockets were spin stabilized, weren't they?
I was actually picturing the smaller rocked inside the nose surrounding the radar but not sure how practical it would be flaring out the cowling.
marathag
Banned
The later 2.75" FFAR was a lot better than the older 4.5" M8, that didn't have angled venturi, just tiny pop-out fins, unlike the FFAR. The M16 was spin stabilized improved version of the M8, that just missed the War. Had Proximity Fuzing, unlike the M8's contact fuze.
The M8 was listed as having 4500 yard ground range, where the listed dispersion was a 65 by 130 yard beaten zone.
For the M8 ( W2 vintage?) what would that mean firing at an airplane from about 200 yards away with a 300 MPH slipstream. Only one hit would suffice I would guess.
Copy the "no allowance" gun arrangement of the Gloster Reaper, firing above the pilot's head?