Hi Treize,
>Needless to say, its perfomance sucked and it was rejected.
Hm, relying on Baugher's article, I can't blame the British for ordering the turbocharger-less Lightning I in early 1940 when they were guaranteed a top speed of 400 mph @ 16900 ft. That was way ahead of any service aircraft of the time, and it was better than what the Spitfire V running at +16 lbs/sqin offered two and a half years later.
(The use of an un-turbocharged Allision not only reduced weight, but also increased total engine output by the exhaust thrust, so both climb and top speed improved by the omission of the turbo-supercharger. Below full throttle height, that is - and in early 1940, there was probably not much reason to expect the combat altitude to increase the way they eventually did.)
The decision for equal-handed engines is understandable as well as the vast majority of all twin-engined aircraft of that period handled quite well with both engines turning in the same direction. I'm not even sure that the bad reputation of the Lightning I's handling qualities is fully deserved - of course handed engines greatly reduce the pilot workload and probably helped to ameliorate some quirks of the basic airframe, but I didn't get the impression that we're talking about prohibitively evil characteristics, like for example the Me 210 demonstrated.
The very quick rejection of the Lightning I is a bit surprising, and it would be interesting to learn more about it. Could it have been a simple failure to match guaranteed performance? The 400 mph figure does not sound all that bad considering the difficult situation of the RAF in 1942!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
