P-38 turnfight

[Soulyss]

 

[BnZs]

The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.

[SmokinLoon]

The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.

stop and think how much better the Mossi would have been      , not that it really needed it but removing the torque would have made it that much faster and more "true" in flight.

[Guppy35]

The P-38 works so well that frankly it amazes me that the concept of a single-seat fighter with counter-rotating props was not used more in the war.

The answer is fairly simple.  Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them.   Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.

[BnZs]

The answer is fairly simple.  Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them.   Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.

There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...

[Guppy35]

There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...

I'm serious though.  It was far easier to produce Mustangs.  In what was a war of attrition, numbers matter.  Top production output for a month on the 38 was 402.  Top for the 51 was 857.  And it took less men to crew a 51 then a 38.  I'm a 38 guy, but if I'm running the war and know I can put 450 extra fighters up if I go with 51s, I'm going with 51s.

I think the 38L took the idea as far as it was going to go too

I think the F7F Tigercat is proof the idea didn't go away.  But Jets showed up and props were obsolete

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The answer is fairly simple.  Complexity of production and the added people and materials needed to maintain them.   Producing Mustangs was a lot cheaper.

The exact same thinking gave us the Sherman.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'm serious though.  It was far easier to produce Mustangs.  In what was a war of attrition, numbers matter.  Top production output for a month on the 38 was 402.  Top for the 51 was 857.  And it took less men to crew a 51 then a 38.  I'm a 38 guy, but if I'm running the war and know I can put 450 extra fighters up if I go with 51s, I'm going with 51s.

I think the 38L took the idea as far as it was going to go too

I think the F7F Tigercat is proof the idea didn't go away.  But Jets showed up and props were obsolete

No, the P-38K took the idea almost as far as it could go. Eventually, the G series Allison and a four blade Hamilton Standard prop would have maxed it out. The G series Allison might have even made it possible to lose the turbocharger and the attending complexity, given the fact that it could have been fitted with a two speed two stage crank driven centrifugal supercharger. How much Lockheed could have done about compression we'll never know.

Had Consolidated Vultee of Nashville been building B-17's instead of doing a poor job of trying to build P-38's, as opposed to having Lockheed build B-17's on what should have been the other half of P-38 production, the P-38 production could have been doubled, and more updates/upgrades been phased in. There's your 800 P-38's in a month. Almost like being second sourced, as the P-51 actually was.

However, nothing would make up for the cost and complexity of the P-38, or the logistics required, including maintenance. Nothing except rock solid performance, and there, other than absolute top speed, and dive speed, the P-38 shined brightly. The P-38K might have been near dominant in categories other than dive speed, and been close even in top speed in level flight, although it would have been at or near compression speeds. No single plane was at the top in every category, but the P-38L was pretty high in all of them, and the P-38K would have been far superior.

Perhaps the ultimate proof the idea didn't go away would be the P/F-82 Twin Mustang, which was in fact Allison powered.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

There are some places to scrimp and save. Fighter design is not one of them. Granted, the Mustang works as well as the P-38 for the intended function, but can you imagine a faster twin design with the compression problems worked out? We know how well a 38 performs in the vertical as is, imagine a counter-rotating design with the weight/power ratio of a late model 109...

I think that would possibly have been the P/F-82 Twin Mustang, fully developed, although it never really was. Honestly, the P-38K was already there, and it was there before the P-38J ever actually went into production. And the P-38K still had room for improvement.

Compression was a nasty problem, to be sure. But how many times was it actually a deciding factor in a fight? Sure, it would have been ideal to eliminate compression, but no prop plane ever really avoided it, although some reached higher speeds before it became a problem. It might be that 50 MPH in a dive might let you get away, or it might let you catch a fleeing opponent.

[W7LPNRICK]

The best fighter day I've seen on here yet was where one of our higher alt bases in the middle edge of our territory, had moderately deep hallows on the NW & NE of the base with a tall hill dead north of the rt end of the NE runway, when a couple of the REAL 38 hot shots were fur balling low and slow with us down in those. They were keeping up with us very well. I was impressed 4-5 each of us having a difficult time killing them. Don't remember all of them, but after killing Soulys(sp?) while he was preoccupied, I PM'ed him and he gave me some tips... I flew the lightening the rest of the day and got a few kills each time I upped. Was the first time I flew it with any degree of confidence at all. Most guys who are good sticks, confident without being Smartprettythanges, will help you get the basics. Afterall, they WANT a challenge. They're tired of killing newbs...to some degree.    

[morfiend]

stop and think how much better the Mossi would have been      , not that it really needed it but removing the torque would have made it that much faster and more "true" in flight.

  DH built 1 mossie with counter-rotating props,the preformance gains were deemed not worth the extra effort and logistics involved.  However they did get it right in the Hornet,what the mossie should have been from the start.


  DH was also aware that the mossie needed a verticle fillet but it would have delayed production lines to unacceptable times. Again DH got it right on the hornet.



     

[Letalis]

Back to why we didn't see more fighters like the P-38.

Cost:  I looked it up a while back.  In 1943 dollars a P-38 cost about $115,000.  A P-47 cost 75k.  The P-51 and F4U came in around the mid 60s if memory serves while the Hellcat was somewhere in the mid 50s.  I also remember the excessive cost being tied not simply to the extra engine but to the 38s unique turbocharger assemblies.

Production:  Even though the 38 did reach full production, it was costly and Lockheed had to move some of their assembly lines outdoors!  Given the mediocre performance in the ETO, the USAAF would have ceased production of the P-38 in 1944 were it not for its incredible popularity in the Pacific (2 engines over vast oceans) and some lobbying by 5th Air Force Commander Gen. George Kenney.

Logistics:  Pilot training.  Pilots of the day were often unfamiliar/intimidated by multiple engines and tricycle landing gear. (I know it sounds funny) Maintenance hours/manpower. Fuel costs.  Not only could you buy two P-51s for every 38 but you could essentially FLY two for the same amount of gas.

Overall, my vote for "best bang for the buck" goes to the Hellcat. Pity the F5F and F7F didn't see action, they would have been fun additions to the game.

[Karnak]

  DH built 1 mossie with counter-rotating props,the preformance gains were deemed not worth the extra effort and logistics involved.  However they did get it right in the Hornet,what the mossie should have been from the start.

While the Hornet was what we'd like the Mossie to have been, the Hornet project also never would have been kept alive by the British government in 1940.  DH barely managed to get the government to agree that a PR aircraft might be made of wood.  It was canceled two or three times and only put back on the schedule by the one guy who believed in it.  It wasn't until it flew, performing exactly like DH said it would, that suddenly the RAF wanted not only the PR model, not only the proposed bomber models, but even asked for the unproposed, but considered, fighter models.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Production:  Even though the 38 did reach full production, it was costly and Lockheed had to move some of their assembly lines outdoors!  Given the mediocre performance in the ETO, the USAAF would have ceased production of the P-38 in 1944 were it not for its incredible popularity in the Pacific (2 engines over vast oceans) and some lobbying by 5th Air Force Commander Gen. George Kenney.

The P-38 had some assembly done out doors because the 8th AF was going through B-17's so fast that Boeing couldn't keep up, and at least 1/2 of the Lockheed plant where the P-38 was produced was tied up trying to help Boeing keep the 8th AF in B-17's. The 8th AF was stupid enough to try unescorted daylight bombing, and even after the 8th did start using escorts, they didn't have enough escorts to do the job because they sent most of them to the MTO. It was almost 6 months before the 8th AF had anywhere close to enough fighters for an escort, and at that point, the P-38 made up nearly half of the roster of fighters that could go the full distance.

The B-17 should have been second sourced to Consolidated Vultee in Nashville, instead of trying to second source the P-38 there, where they only managed to build 113 P-38's in two years. Consolidated had plenty of experience building large bombers, and Lockheed could have used 100% of their plant capacity to build P-38's, doubling production or better, and dropping the cost. Problems with cost and sourcing of the P-38 lie not with Lockheed and the plane, but rather with the War Production Board.

The ETO was demanding P-38's right up until mid 1944 as fast as Lockheed could supply them, the PTO and General Kenney were second string, compared to Europe. Further, the MTO still wanted P-38's right up until the war in Europe ended. No, the P-38 was not unwanted, it was in demand right up until VJ day, only the 8th wasn't using them after July 44 because the air war in the ETO was mostly done. Even then the P-38 was a better choice than the P-51, because of its ability to survive ground work, Doolittle declined to continue using the P-38 in order to solve logistics issues by cutting his supply line to covering two different fighters instead of three.

[STEELE]

Looking at 38's and found this footage from Duxford

Any idea what went wrong?
edit (it crashed, dont watch it, looks like possible control failure but Im not sure)