Author Topic: The PJ cometh (Read 2565 times)

Murdr · « **Reply #60 on:** December 19, 2004, 12:05:16 PM »

p38online, and p38assn are nice sites, but JBoughers articles from 1999 are the most detailed online articles on P-38 development:

Quote

The P-38G began to roll off the production lines in June of 1942. It was basically similar to the P-38F apart from a change to the Allison V-1710-51/55 (F10) engine with increased boost ratings and offering 1325 hp for takeoff. However, the engine was limited to 1150 hp at 27,000 feet due to inadequate cooling. In addition, the P-38G carried a SCR-274N radio and A-9 oxygen equipment.

Production of the P-38G was divided across six blocks. There were 708 US-ordered Model 222-68-12 aircraft. 80 of these were P-38G-1-LOs which were generally similar to the P-38F-15-LOs but with the new engines, improved oxygen equipment and more reliable radios. Twelve of them were P-38G-3-LOs with B-13 superchargers. 68 were P-38G-5-LOs with revised instrumentation and 548 were P-38G-10-LOs which combined the improvements introduced in the two previous blocks with winterization equipment, provision for carrying 1600 lb bombs underneath the wing center section, or a triple cluster of 4.5-inch rocket launchers on each side of the central nacelle. The 374 Model 322-68-19s (174 P-38G-13-LOs, equivalent to the P-38G-3-LO and 200 P-38G-15-LOs, corresponding to the P-38G-5-LO) came from the cancelled British contract for Lightning IIs which was taken over by the USAAF.

Unarmed photographic reconnaissance versions of the P-38G were also produced under the designation F-5A. A single F-5A-2-LO (model 222-62-16) was completed by modifying a P-38E airframe (41-2157) by installing V-1719-21/29 engines. All of the other F-5As (Model 222-68-16) had P-38G airframes and 1325 hp V-1710-51/55 engines. Twenty F-5A-1-LOs, twenty F-5A-3-LOs, and 140 F-5A-10-LOs had the same modifications as P-38G variants with corresponding block numbers, and came off the production line in parallel with their fighter counterparts. All were unarmed and carried five cameras.

One F-5A-10-LO (Ser No 42-12975) was modified as an experimental two-seat reconnaissance aircraft under the designation XF-5D-LO. The camera operator was located in a glazed nose compartment with two forward-firing 0.50-in machine guns. Three K-17 cameras were installed, one underneath the nose and one in each tail boom.

One P-38G-5-LO (42-12866) was used as a testbed for the proposed XP-49 armament (two 20-mm cannon and four 0.50-in machine guns). The USAAF also undertook at Wright Field preliminary design for a proposed derivative of the P-38G which was to have carried a 75-mm cannon in a revised and enlarged central nacelle. However, this concept never got past the initial design stage.

The P-38G had a loaded weight some 200 pounds less than that of the P-38F, and was the most widely-built version of the early Lightnings. 1082 P-38Gs had been delivered by March of 1943. 181 of these had been completed as F-5A photo reconnaissance aircraft and another 200 had been completed as F-5Bs with camera installations similar to that of the F-5A-10-LO but with engines and airframe identical to those of the later P-38J-5-LO. One F-5A-10-LO (Ser No 42-12975) was modified as an experimental two-seat reconnaissance aircraft under the designation XF-5D-LO.

Specification of P-38G-1-LO

Maximum speed: 345 mph at 5000 feet, 360 mph at 10,000 feet, 400 mph at 25,000 feet. 850 miles range on internal fuel at cruising speed of 219 mph at 10,000 feet. 1750 miles range at 211 mph at 10,000 feet with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Climb to 10,000 feet in 3.7 minutes, climb to 20,000 feet in 8.5 minutes. Service ceiling of 39,000 feet. Weights were 12,200 lbs empty, 15,800 lbs normal loaded, 19,800 lbs maximum loaded. Dimensions were wingspan 52 feet 0 inches, length 37 feet 10 inches, height 9 feet 10 inches, wing area 327.5 square feet. Armed with one 20-mm Hispano M1 cannon with 150 rounds and four 0.50-in Colt-Browning MG 53-2 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun. Could carry two 325, 500, or 1000-lb bombs.

Serials for the F-5A/P-38G production run were as follows:

41-2157 Lockheed F-5A-2-LO Lightning
42-12667/12686 Lockheed F-5A-1-LO Lightning
42-12687/12766 Lockheed P-38G-1-LO Lightning
42-12767/12786 Lockheed F-5A-3-LO Lightning
42-12787/12798 Lockheed P-38G-3-LO Lightning
42-12799/12866 Lockheed P-38G-5-LO Lightning
42-12870/12966 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-12967/12986 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-12987/13066 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13067/13126 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13127/13266 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
42-13267/13326 Lockheed F-5A-10-LO Lightning
42-13327/13557 Lockheed P-38G-10-LO Lightning
43-2185/2358 Lockheed P-38G-13-LO Lightning
43-2359/2558 Lockheed P-38G-15-LO Lightning

Sources:

Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987

The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.

The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, Captain Eric Brown, Airlife, 1985.

United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #61 on:** December 19, 2004, 03:50:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Delirium
I did alot of looking around some time ago and Dan/Slack is right on the money.

The first air victory was recorded by a P38F by Elza Shahan, while the P38Ds were used primarily for training roles.

Still, it would of been nice to have that potatoe gun the P38Ds had.

Yeah, the P-38D was only used as trainer but it did carry a 37mm Oldsmobile cannon instead of the 20mm Hispano. Heard the Oldsmobile cannon though was pretty crappy.

ack-ack

Karnak · « **Reply #62 on:** December 19, 2004, 04:42:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
The G was the first to get the reinforced wing that allowed for the ferry tanks and larger bomb loads.

That, right there, is why we should have gotten the F instead of the G. The Jabo loads on the American fighters are the single biggest imballance in CT setups becuase unlike reality where the smaller loads were actually used most often, they are never used in AH.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 19, 2004, 09:19:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
That, right there, is why we should have gotten the F instead of the G. The Jabo loads on the American fighters are the single biggest imballance in CT setups becuase unlike reality where the smaller loads were actually used most often, they are never used in AH.

Pretty rare when Jabo loads are critical in the CT, though.

- oldman

rpm · « **Reply #64 on:** December 20, 2004, 01:18:21 AM »

These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #65 on:** December 20, 2004, 05:35:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.

That`s a pretty uberly broad statement.

Define "these guys". Heck go ahead and define "uber" as used here.
This part of "these guys" likes the idea of getting another plane from WWII. I`d much rather have this than I had the eye candy of late, so yea, I think it`s a "uber " idea.

Karnak · « **Reply #66 on:** December 20, 2004, 10:04:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oldman731
Pretty rare when Jabo loads are critical in the CT, though.

- oldman

I disagree. They are critical in almost every setup, and whenever the USAAF or USN are involved, barring current early war setups, the Axis need two or three times as many pilots as the Allies to accomplish the same thing.

The fact is that 250lb and 500lb bombs were carried by fighters more often than 1,000lb bombs, but in AH how often do you see a P-51D, P-47D-25/D-40 or P-38 with anything less than 1,000lbers? Subbing the P-38G for the P-38F will simply move this same problem into early war setups.

Jackal1,

If that were true the original poster would have included the P-38G in his statement. He only included the P-38J, using an Airwarrior term for it. Care to guess why?

Pyro · « **Reply #67 on:** December 20, 2004, 10:27:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Subbing the P-38G for the P-38F will simply move this same problem into early war setups.

The P-38F carried 1000 lb bombs too.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #68 on:** December 20, 2004, 11:37:30 AM »

I do not understand the ambiguity as to what the Mil and WEP power ratings are for the P-38L. This is the POH for the P-38L engine ratings.

Is it possible that certain units made it common practice to run at some degree of overboost? Sure is. It is also possible that every combat A/C in service was running at some degree of overboost. I have seen a thousand performance charts for the 190A with speeds far exceeding accepted performance. Do you really want to open than Can'O'worms?

Karnak · « **Reply #69 on:** December 20, 2004, 12:09:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
The P-38F carried 1000 lb bombs too.

Did it? I thought that it was only the Late Js and the Ls that could carry 2,000lbers.

If the F could carry 1000lbers, what was the strengthed hard points for larger bombs on the G? Could the G carry 2000lbers?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #70 on:** December 20, 2004, 12:40:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Did it? I thought that it was only the Late Js and the Ls that could carry 2,000lbers.

If the F could carry 1000lbers, what was the strengthed hard points for larger bombs on the G? Could the G carry 2000lbers?

From what I've read, the G was the first to be able to use the 300 gallon ferry tanks and to carry a 2000 pounder on a wing hard point.

That being said, I don't see where that was done much operationally.

Dan/Slack

Pyro · « **Reply #71 on:** December 20, 2004, 03:27:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
I do not understand the ambiguity as to what the Mil and WEP power ratings are for the P-38L. This is the POH for the P-38L engine ratings.

Not sure what you mean by that. I was speaking of the early 38's when I mentioned the changing ratings as a source of confusion on the subject.

laz · « **Reply #72 on:** December 20, 2004, 04:43:31 PM »

Can't wait to fly these 38's, just another ride for the MA to fear.

gofaster · « **Reply #73 on:** December 20, 2004, 05:02:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
These guys think they will get the "uber PJ" that was in Air Warrior. I think they will be "uber" disappointed.

Kinda like the Ki-84?

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed that it can't race with the Mustangs, but I am watching the P-38 development and can't wait to see how they compare.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #74 on:** December 21, 2004, 05:50:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

Jackal1,

If that were true the original poster would have included the P-38G in his statement. He only included the P-38J, using an Airwarrior term for it. Care to guess why?

Karnak, did ya take a wrong turn at Tulsa or what?

I am the original poster in this thread. The lead off topic is about the PJ. No mention of AW or any use of it`s terminology.