Turbos were very large, Whirlwind nacelles small.
Better would have been radials, like the R-1830 Twin Wasp.
slightly more weight and frontal drag, but 200HP more at this time and dead reliable
WI P-38 Lightnings in RAF service?
- Thread starter Draconis
- Start date
Turbos were very large, Whirlwind nacelles small.
Better would have been radials, like the R-1830 Twin Wasp.
slightly more weight and frontal drag, but 200HP more at this time and dead reliable
What?
There was a role the Mossie could not fulfill???
That's why the Hornet! Dah....
Admiral Beez
Banned
How does the Hornet compare to a P-38L, first flown in 1944, same year as the Hornet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning
Maximum speed: 414 mph
Range: 1,300 mi
Service ceiling: 44,000 ft
Rate of climb: 4,750 ft/min
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft²
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet
Maximum speed: 472 mph
Range: 3,000 mi
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft
Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min
Wing loading: 55.26 lb/ft2
The Hornet seems to be much faster, but has significantly slower rate of climb and ceiling, plus higher wing loading. Thus I suggest the P-38L would outperform the Hornet in a turning match.
Which any well trained Hornet pilot would refuse, using their significant speed advantage to fight in the vertical where possible and refuse engagement where not.
Anyway, we digress. Depending on how early the Lightnings are introduced, they could do wonders for the RN. Additional long range air cover for Crete, perhaps for Malta convoys too.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Hence my earlier confusion
Captain Brown seems to have liked the Hornet....a lot
The P-38....not so much
Let's compare the two properly.
Service in WWII:
P-38: Yes, 1942 to 1945.
Hornet: No.
Here's a WI. Dowding is given the restful job of setting up Ceylon's air defence system and supplied with 3 squadrons of Lightnings. You know, Ceylon has really really good tea, and great beaches.
Admiral Beez
Banned
Was the P-38 tried on carriers? Take off is easy, but arrested landings? Where to put the hook? I suppose in the same location as the twin boom Vampire, Venom and Vixen. What was it's low speed handing like?
Last edited:
Driftless
Donor
You've just indelibly planted a picture in my mind of Hugh Dowding in aviator shades, board shorts, and toting a surf board. Geweuehk....
I have different Ranges and speeds.
DH Mosquito NF XIX
1905 miles with 616 Imp. Gallons, including droptanks, 5780 pounds payload
4 20mm cannons
378mph@ 13,200 feet
P-38J-25
2260 miles with 1010 Gallons, including droptanks, 8820 pounds payload
4 .50s, 1 20mm
420mph@ 26,500. Boosted Ailerons. Service Ceiling 40,000 feet.
Turbos were there for a reason.
The F-5C photo Lighting had a top speed for 430mph at 30,000
DH Mosquito NF XIX
1905 miles with 616 Imp. Gallons, including droptanks, 5780 pounds payload
4 20mm cannons
378mph@ 13,200 feet
P-38J-25
2260 miles with 1010 Gallons, including droptanks, 8820 pounds payload
4 .50s, 1 20mm
420mph@ 26,500. Boosted Ailerons. Service Ceiling 40,000 feet.
Turbos were there for a reason.
The F-5C photo Lighting had a top speed for 430mph at 30,000
Lockheed offered the Navy the Model 822. Folding wing, and tail hook
Never made it past Paper, as Navy wanted nothing to do with liquid cooled engines
Someone had fun with this 'What If' model
You're being silly again. Sir Stuffy always had a cute WAAF around to tote his surfboard, dude.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Through no fault of its own though!!
And lets face it a Dowding managed Air Defence System with 3 Squadrons of pretty much any fighter would be significantly superior to OTL.
Admiral Beez
Banned
The worst twin boom prop fighter for a carrier would be the Fokker D.XXIII. Just think of the danger for the deck hands.
I don't understand. I assigned no blame.
Fighters with legs, which could assume a more aggressive stance would be handy. A fighter which could shepherd some Blenheims, and defeat a carrier CAP would be nifty.
I'm away from my books, but a number of the books I have on P-38L list a top speed at maximum power of 442 mph, which (iirc) is the maximum speed the airframe would allow based mach limits. They cite as sources Tony LaVier and Lockheed testing documents. The books point out the 414 mph commonly quoted is not on maximum power.
Anyway, a nice collection of usenet posts on the greatness of the P-38 can be found here: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
One thing folks forget is how maneuverable the P-38 was due to its handed engines. Only the Spitfire could turn with it in the Western theater.
Anyway, a nice collection of usenet posts on the greatness of the P-38 can be found here: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
One thing folks forget is how maneuverable the P-38 was due to its handed engines. Only the Spitfire could turn with it in the Western theater.
Here's a good site on the good and bad aspects of the P38.
http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html
The article mislabels Johnson as being a MIT alumnus. He earned his masters at the University of Michigan.
The author - Carlo Kopp - also has a bit of a reputation. He's not as bad as that guy who keeps saying that the M113 GAVIN was the second coming of Jesus, but he also has some definite bees in his bonnet. He's very fond of long-range heavy fighters, for example, and I suspect he's willing to be kinder in his analysis of them. So, y'know, pinch of salt and all that.