WI: NACA Modified P-38

Driftless

Donor
Would the makeup of the potential enemy air forces drive the weapons combination to some extent? If your primary target as an interceptor is bombers, then the heavier fire power of the 20mm's or 37mm might be more desirable. If you figure the P-38 is going to be duking it out with nimble fighters, then more bullets - .50 caliber Browning's may be better. So, the mix-and-match of the historic combo idea had some merit.

At this point, how much of early fighting data has been filtered back up the pipeline about the extreme nimbleness of the A6M Zero and long range all Japanese warplanes - at the expense of protection? They had a fair amount of data from the British, on strengths and weaknesses of German & Italian aircraft, correct?
 
I think the ideal armament fit would have been 6 .50 Brownings for P-38s squadrons deployed to the Pacific and 4 20mm cannons for operations against the more heavily built aircraft produced by the Germans. Ideal but not really practicable due to the complications introduced to production.

The OTL armament fit was pretty good. Maybe after the improved 20mm is developed have a 2 20mm and 3 .50 mix. Or just 4 20 mm only for a one size fits all approach. Simplifies logistics a little.
 
EverKing now that the biggest flaws in the troubled development of the OTL P-38 have been so deftly resolved what do you think is the next step in your story?
 
EverKing now that the biggest flaws in the troubled development of the OTL P-38 have been so deftly resolved what do you think is the next step in your story?
Coming next will be Performance Acceptance Tests for the new P-38F, then we'll probably move forward to early combat experience with the new airplane which will reveal a few more deficencies. After that it will be more tweaks and improvents then the long range escort comparison with took place in 1943. From there we'll start any potential impact in the critical late '43 to early '44 time period.
 
I think the ideal armament fit would have been 6 .50 Brownings for P-38s squadrons deployed to the Pacific and 4 20mm cannons for operations against the more heavily built aircraft produced by the Germans. Ideal but not really practicable due to the complications introduced to production.

The OTL armament fit was pretty good. Maybe after the improved 20mm is developed have a 2 20mm and 3 .50 mix. Or just 4 20 mm only for a one size fits all approach. Simplifies logistics a little.
Yeah, OTL armament provides the best balance and having even 1 20mm was great against the Japanese. By war's end 4 x 20mm was a favored load out for several airplanes. The Air Force went back to 6 x .50's after the war largely because of the introduction of the M3 .50 cal with its blistering rate of fire which more than made up the difference in the weight of fire and that only hung around until the rotary canon was developed (which we are still using).

Edit: I did a little more reading and it looks the US military, especially Navy, was trying to transition to all 20mm loadout throughout the war and were unable to mostly because of the reliability issues with the IH built A/N M1 and M2 H.S.404's. Interestingly, the problems seemed to the result of having too deep a chamber. When the US tested the British version with the shorter chamber the reliability issues went away but the US Military chose not to apply the lesson and refused to redesign the chamber in the US version. Yet another example of sheer stubbornes leading to bad decisions.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
I did a little more reading and it looks the US military, especially Navy, was trying to transition to all 20mm loadout throughout the war and were unable to mostly because of the reliability issues with the IH built A/N M1 and M2 H.S.404's. Interestingly, the problems seemed to the result of having too deep a chamber. When the US tested the British version with the shorter chamber the reliability issues went away but the US Military chose not to apply the lesson and refused to redesign the chamber in the US version. Yet another example of sheer stubbornes leading to bad decisions.

And they never did the obvious and do what the Japanese did with their HO-5, scale up the .50 Browning to run 20mmx94 at 850rpm
20mm-aircraft-cannon-ho-5.jpg

just under 87 pounds bare, with 2430 fps with HE
 
And they never did the obvious and do what the Japanese did with their HO-5, scale up the .50 Browning to run 20mmx94 at 850rpm
20mm-aircraft-cannon-ho-5.jpg

just under 87 pounds bare, with 2430 fps with HE
True, but part of the reason is because they already had stockpiles of 20x110mm ammo and when they worked the 20mm A/N M2/M3 were superior. 650 rpm, 2800-2900 fps, and better max range. The reliability issues were worked around in the early P-38's by having an in-cockpit cocking lever so even if the cannon misfired the pilot could cycle the weapon.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
True, but part of the reason is because they already had stockpiles of 20x110mm ammo and when they worked the 20mm A/N M2/M3 were superior. 650 rpm, 2800-2900 fps, and better max range. The reliability issues were worked around in the early P-38's by having an in-cockpit cocking lever so even if the canon misfired the pilot could cycle the weapon.

The Japanese kept scaling up the Browning, to 30x114 in the Ho-155

Going to 20x110 should not have been a problem.
Well, except for the US Ordnance, who couldn't get the 20mm family to work, or the .60, or the 30-06 version of the MG-42, or the fact it took years to just speed up the M2 to the M3.
Soviets were running high speed .50s without needing four years to do it.
 
One experimental installation was 3 MG151s in the nose with experimental .60 AT ammunition. Eventually, in time,that round became 20mm, and that gun became M-39, and M-61.
 
Yeah, it really seems like the US's ability to build good guns died--save a few exceptions--with Browning...there is a reason we're still using his designs 100 years later (e.g. M2 and M1911).
 
Yeah, it really seems like the US's ability to build good guns died--save a few exceptions--with Browning...there is a reason we're still using his designs 100 years later (e.g. M2 and M1911).

The ghost of Mr Gatling came up with a cute little number, M-61, which has a long service life. The competition was the revolvers from Mr Mauser, also still going strong.
 
Minor correction made in the description of the 12/18/41 accident: it previously described the turbo as a B-13 when in fact the early P-38's used the B-2. The B-13 was introduced, in OTL, with the G model and was replaced partway through H model production with the B-33. I changed the description to the proper "B-2."
 
The ghost of Mr Gatling came up with a cute little number, M-61, which has a long service life. The competition was the revolvers from Mr Mauser, also still going strong.
The modern American rotary cannons (and of course the Mini-Gun) are phenomenal, no doubt; but, I agree that the Mauser Revolver Cannons are just as good or better in some ways. In fact, I think the revolver cannons are the best balance of rate of fire and flexibility (weight).
 
I think belly guns on the sides of the center fuselage under the wings, two per side, could work. The placement will help avoid too much shift in center of gravity so the weight won't be too hard to handle. You could even go Mossie style an use 20mm.
There's another idea that crossed my mind, & I neglected to mention it: a blister pod firing over the top of the canopy, akin the P-61 turret. There's more room in the center nacelle TTL, so...

With the options of 2/3x20mm in the nose & 4x12.7mm in the belly &/or shoulders (8 in all?), all firing right down the centerline of the aircraft, you've got the Devil's own strafer....:eek::cool::cool:
Would the makeup of the potential enemy air forces drive the weapons combination to some extent? If your primary target as an interceptor is bombers, then the heavier fire power of the 20mm's or 37mm might be more desirable. If you figure the P-38 is going to be duking it out with nimble fighters, then more bullets - .50 caliber Browning's may be better.
That's an excellent point. There's also the sighting issue, with difference in bullet drop between the MG & cannon. And there's theatre use: the 6 MG would be plenty for Japanese a/c (so would 4, for all that), where more guns might be better against Germans. OTOH, strafing in SWPA with more MG &/or cannon, against barges & such... Ditto against lighters & barges in MTO, if any of that's done.

One other thing crosses my mind: in SWPA, there's an option to use 4xMG & increase the ammo load.

One performance-related question: does the "sleeker" P-38 TTL gain in weapons load, for less drag/more lift? IIRC, OTL it was around 5200pd max...
 
Ch.6 - Final Dive Tests (Feb 1942)
26 February 1942

Burbank, California, USA

Being Lockheed's best test pilot for powered dives, Ralph Virden was once again tasked with putting the completely modified 009 through its paces. In the pre-flight planning he had gone over the airplane with the engineers in detail, reviewing and examining all of the changes. The last time he flew it, three weeks earlier, it had only recently been giving the new sliding canopy but was otherwise much the same as it had been in his earlier flights. Now, they had completed the final round of modifications to it which made it essentially identical to what would soon be manufactured as the P-38F.

The biggest change was in the engines. Allison had finally gotten their supply of new F5 engines figured out and Lockheed had completed fitting them to 009 over the past few weeks. The new engines promised to be more powerful with a Military Power rating of at least 1325 horsepower compared to the F2 engines 1150 horsepower. The increased power was largely thanks to higher boost settings permitting up to 47 in/Hg in Military Power. The engine was still “Normal Rated” at 1000 hp and 38 in/Hg manifold pressure, same as the old engines.

The exact upper power limit and the amount of boost was an unknown as the other big change with the airplane should enable even more than the 47” of boost that Allison and the Army estimated. That change was the new AiResearch core-type inter-coolers mounted under the engines. These should improve the charge air cooling and allow higher boost with less fear of detonation from high Carburetor Air Temperature.

The full power tests and boost ratings would be performed on behalf of the Army in April after the first few production P-38F's rolled off the factory floor. For now, Ralph was taking the airplane to do what what he did best: diving.

Ever since the NACA recommendation were developed they had not yet reached their true limit. First was the partially modified YP-38 which tested the wing adequately but didn't have the gondola and canopy modifications. Then was came the flight when the left turbo exploded which prevented Ralph from completing the dives. Since then they had been more focused on general testing and trying out individual systems. This would be the first full dive test designed to discover the absolute Mach limit of the airplane.

Due to the previous problems, the flight test engineers and Ralph agreed that all of the dives would begin at 30,000 feet and proceed until the airplane ran into compressibility with an altitude floor of 15,000 feet. The thought was that by starting in the thinner air above 26,000 feet the airplane should be able accelerate to its maximum more quickly and in the event of a control lock Ralph would still have enough altitude to recover.

Ralph took 009 through the first two dives at a shallow angle and with the throttle only at 42 inches and 2600 RPM just to get a feel for the new engines. The B-2 turbos could only maintain 42” up to about 25,000 feet after which the manifold pressures began to drop with altitude so that at 30,000 feet the plane was only pulling 36.5 inches, or about 22% more than sea-level pressure. This suited Ralph just fine as it avoided over-taxing both the engines and the turbos and the steady increase in the rated power as the dive descended ensured a smooth acceleration throughout the maneuver.

The next series of dives were performed under full power at 3000 RPM. Again, due to the limits of the turbochargers he kept the throttle in the 42” position (partway between Normal and Military power settings) until he was below 25,000 feet at which time he pressed the throttle controls fully forward. The airplane underwent a dramatic acceleration as the boost pressure increased until about 22,500 feet when the pressures held steady at 47”, 57% more than the normal air pressure at sea level.

With each dive he reached progressively greater speeds. The on the sixth dive, the airplane's acceleration dropped at 21,000 feet and Indicating just over 415 mph. Carrying the dive lower as the airspeed crawled up, Ralph felt the first signs of shudder a few hundred feet lower at nearly 421 mph. Pulling back on the throttles, Ralph slowly brought the plane out of the dive, the indicated airspeed continued to rise as he dropped into the thicker air but the shudder went away and the plane pulled level smoothly and without drama.

He decided to push harder in at a deeper angle to try to reach the limit sooner with the next several dives. During a slow climb back up to altitude under cruising power he ran a few quick estimates on his notepad. If he could reach an indicated speed above 400 at 22000 feet he would have the airplane at around the same True Airspeed. That should give him enough altitude to push the Mach limits all the way.

Dive seven started as the others except he was nosed over to negative 45 degrees. He watched the Airspeed Indicator closely as it spiraled up. Again he could feel a momentary pause in the acceleration followed by the start of a shudder in the elevators. The airspeed read 407 mph and the altimeter was at 21,800 feet and dropping. He rode it out.

At 19,600 feet and IAS of 432 mph the shudder started to become more violent and the nose began to tuck, just like it did with the old airplane. Not wanting to risk it becoming unrecoverable, he retarded the throttles back to 30 inches and dropped the RPM to 2280. Using his elevator trim he slowly brought the nose up a few degrees as the airplane slowed until the shudder stopped and he pulled the yoke back to level the airplane at 15,700 feet.

His eighth and final dive of the day repeated the seventh but he reached the start of the nose over at 20,200 feet while indicating 427 mph. Recovery was the same and Ralph felt confident that he was finally able to hit the dive limits of 009 after the last three dives.

* * *

Later, Ralph wrote up his report and took the time to compile the data from all eight dives, typing them up in a table. He was sure the Army, and Kelly Johnson, would be please with his results (although he suspected it might be time to request a new typewriter from the boss).

upload_2017-6-24_21-41-17.png
 
Last edited:
With the options of 2/3x20mm in the nose & 4x12.7mm in the belly &/or shoulders (8 in all?), all firing right down the centerline of the aircraft, you've got the Devil's own strafer....:eek::cool::cool:
I would actually swap that: 4 x .50's in the nose (with extra ammo) and 4 x 20mm blister pods on the lower sides of the central nacelle. That is P-61 firepower. Load them all with AP and you have a pretty darn good tank buster too, I would think.

One performance-related question: does the "sleeker" P-38 TTL gain in weapons load, for less drag/more lift? IIRC, OTL it was around 5200pd max...
Unlikely. Although sleeker, this design is also heavier empty. They added weight with the leading edge extensions and even more with the extended gondola. The aerodynamic gains are good but not likely enough to justify much or any increase in usable payload.*

*Edit: where they could see gain over OTL is range (fuel economy) and level flight top speed.
 
Last edited:
I would actually swap that: 4 x .50's in the nose (with extra ammo) and 4 x 20mm blister pods on the lower sides of the central nacelle. That is P-61 firepower. Load them all with AP and you have a pretty darn good tank buster too, I would think.
I would only disagree on fitting blister pods as opposed to a single belly or shoulder "tray" mounting; the pods strike me as more draggy (& esthetically less attractive:p)
Unlikely. Although sleeker, this design is also heavier empty.
I had a suspicion not. Thx.
 
I would only disagree on fitting blister pods as opposed to a single belly or shoulder "tray" mounting; the pods strike me as more draggy (& esthetically less attractive:p)
True, but with most of the belly taken up with the nose gear and how narrow the center nacelle is I just don't see a way around using some manner of bulging installation. The ATL P-38 could be a really good fit for this as you could mount them slight further aft and use the extented area to accomodate space for the ammunition magazines. This would also allow fitting long barrel versions of the HS404 for better velocity and range.
 
Top