--Went to the Mathers AFB air show this past weekend and got to see
4 of the 7 remaining P-38 Lightnings flying. I know they had Allison engines
and I remember the P-51s originally had these as well. Well the P-51 got the
Merlin and a huge boost in performance; why didn't this happen to the P-38s
as well? Talking to a pal at the show we decided it was due to a production
bottleneck; i.e. they couldn't be made in sufficient quantities to equip the
twin engine aircraft. Anyone know the truth of the matter?

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Beauty times brains
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : is a constant..
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Sep 12, 7:15*pm, steamer wrote:
* * * * --Went to the Mathers AFB air show this past weekend and got to see
4 of the 7 remaining P-38 Lightnings flying. I know they had Allison engines
and I remember the P-51s originally had these as well. Well the P-51 got the
Merlin and a huge boost in performance; why didn't this happen to the P-38s
as well? Talking to a pal at the show we decided it was due to a production
bottleneck; i.e. they couldn't be made in sufficient quantities to equip the
twin engine aircraft. Anyone know the truth of the matter?

--
* * * * "Steamboat Ed" Haas * * * * : *Beauty times brains *
* * * * Hacking the Trailing Edge! *: *is a constant..
* * * * * * * * * * * * *www.nmpproducts.com
* * * * * * * * * *---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

My wife and I attended a family reunion in Tillamook, OR in July, then
visited the Air Museum at the old blimp base in Tillamook, OR for a
couple of hours. They advertise all their planes are in flying
condition. That includes one P-38.

Local guy here in Central Oregon was the one that is credited for
taking out Yamamoto using a P-38. What a guy! He is gone, now. What an
airplane! Even stationary, it looks like it's flying.

Paul

steamer wrote:
--Went to the Mathers AFB air show this past weekend and got to see
4 of the 7 remaining P-38 Lightnings flying. I know they had Allison engines
and I remember the P-51s originally had these as well. Well the P-51 got the
Merlin and a huge boost in performance; why didn't this happen to the P-38s
as well? Talking to a pal at the show we decided it was due to a production
bottleneck; i.e. they couldn't be made in sufficient quantities to equip the
twin engine aircraft. Anyone know the truth of the matter?


The P-38 didn't need a moderate increase in power..
By virtue of having two engines it had twice the power of the P-51.
The very early ones had engines that turned the same direction.

The torque and P-factor made for a hand full under even fairly normal
takeoff conditions. They were quickly replaced with engines that turned
opposite directions which tamed the beast. Which is probably the real
answer to your question.

Its an awesome airplane!

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/More_P-38_Stuff.html


Flight Characteristics of the P-38
(video 35 minutes)
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html
(video)
Scroll down to Angel in Coveralls
--

Richard Lamb

CaveLamb wrote:
....
The very early ones had engines that turned the same direction.

"A batch ordered by Britain did not have counter-rotating propellers."
So says http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html


The torque and P-factor made for a hand full under even fairly normal
takeoff conditions. They were quickly replaced with engines that turned
opposite directions which tamed the beast. Which is probably the real
answer to your question.

The counter-rotating props also turned the wrong way.

On 09/12/2010 07:15 PM, steamer wrote:
--Went to the Mathers AFB air show this past weekend and got to see
4 of the 7 remaining P-38 Lightnings flying. I know they had Allison engines
and I remember the P-51s originally had these as well. Well the P-51 got the
Merlin and a huge boost in performance; why didn't this happen to the P-38s
as well? Talking to a pal at the show we decided it was due to a production
bottleneck; i.e. they couldn't be made in sufficient quantities to equip the
twin engine aircraft. Anyone know the truth of the matter?

From the one book I had on the P-38 it was politics: the RR was a
better engine at high altitude, but GM didn't want to see any more work
going to Rolls.

But it was probably a bunch of reasons -- things are never simple.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Tim Wescott wrote:
On 09/12/2010 07:33 PM, CaveLamb wrote:
steamer wrote:
--Went to the Mathers AFB air show this past weekend and got to see
4 of the 7 remaining P-38 Lightnings flying. I know they had Allison
engines
and I remember the P-51s originally had these as well. Well the P-51
got the
Merlin and a huge boost in performance; why didn't this happen to the
P-38s
as well? Talking to a pal at the show we decided it was due to a
production
bottleneck; i.e. they couldn't be made in sufficient quantities to
equip the
twin engine aircraft. Anyone know the truth of the matter?


The P-38 didn't need a moderate increase in power..
By virtue of having two engines it had twice the power of the P-51.
The very early ones had engines that turned the same direction.

They had counter-rotating props since day 1. The prototype had them
arranged for best engine-out performance, but that set up some weird
turbulence on the center section and tail, so they were reversed.



Ah yes! I remember that (sorta)

--

Richard Lamb

On 09/13/2010 06:06 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:20 am, Pete wrote:
...
The P-38 didn't need a performance boost primarily because it was
turbocharged. The P-39 was hamstrung by its Allison because the Army,
in its infinite wisdom had the two speed supercharger replaced with a
single speed supercharger, which really limited performance at
altitude. The P-38 didn't have that problem.
...
Pete Keillor

The P-38 and P-39 were both designed to the same request for an
interceptor. The 38 was more promising so the 39 was repurposed for
ground attack, partly to keep Bell from closing. At low altitude the
P-39 was good enough to tangle with a Zero with some chance of
success. If you look at the power vs altitude chart referenced in my
other post you'll see that the low-altitude engine has more power
close to the ground, down where all the strafing and bombing targets
are.

The P-40 was also intended for low level ground support use since in
the late 30's no heavy bomber could threaten the continental US, only
smaller carrier aircraft could get close enough. We were far too
isolationist to spend scarce funds to prepare for major overseas land
operations. Those who knew better counted on several years of
preparation time between the start of a war and serious attacks on the
US. That's why we had battleships and carriers but too few antisub
escorts, which are quicker to build when needed.

Today the F-22 andF-35 suffer the same opposition. It seems we need an
occasional Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to silence the delusion that the world
will be safe if we all think peaceful thoughts. We'll have peace only
when everyone believes they have justice.

Everyone will believe that they have justice when pigs fly (and the pigs
will probably be complaining).

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

" wrote:

My wife and I attended a family reunion in Tillamook, OR in July, then
visited the Air Museum at the old blimp base in Tillamook, OR for a
couple of hours. They advertise all their planes are in flying
condition. That includes one P-38.

I've had the joy of seeing P-38's fly at Oskosh EAA. My feeble brain, when seeing the
subject line for this thread, was going oh goodie, plane, pistol or can opener. All
devices I admire.

Almost bought a P-38 once but I did enough research to realise it was an afterwar alloy
frame model. (pistol) Damn. There are three iconic guns I don't have yet, the Lugar,
P-38, and the M1911.

Some machines exude sex and hormones. Think Italian sports cars and the P-38 Lightning,
like Raquel in her advanced age, is still hot!


Wes

On Sep 13, 6:35*pm, Wes wrote:
...
Some machines exude sex and hormones. *Think Italian sports cars and the P-38 Lightning,
like Raquel in her advanced age, is still hot!

Wes

My father who was an Air Corps ordnance company CO in the Pacific said
the pilots didn't really like the P-38. He didn't know why, but the
plane was very advanced for its time and had a lot of teething
problems, some very serious like loss of control in a high speed dive.
Sometimes the thicker air down low slowed it enough to regain control,
sometimes it didn't.....

The closest I'll ever get to flying one is a sim, where it's not
nearly the most nimble WW2 fighter and can flip out suddenly if turned
too hard too slow. #2 US ace Tommy McGuire crashed that way while
chasing a Zero at low level.
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html

As far as I can tell the MS sims are reasonably accurate. If so, I'll
take a land-based Corsair, please.

The sim Lightning does have a lot of 20mm firepower and unlike some
others is stable enough to tear up small ground targets from several
thousand feet. In Combat Flight Sim 2 it can set fire to and
eventually sink a warship. Shooting up the whole Japanese Navy in
volcano-rimmed Rabaul harbor on an HDTV monitor is a lot of fun.

jsw

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:35:17 -0400, Wes
wrote:

" wrote:

My wife and I attended a family reunion in Tillamook, OR in July, then
visited the Air Museum at the old blimp base in Tillamook, OR for a
couple of hours. They advertise all their planes are in flying
condition. That includes one P-38.

I've had the joy of seeing P-38's fly at Oskosh EAA. My feeble brain, when seeing the
subject line for this thread, was going oh goodie, plane, pistol or can opener. All
devices I admire.

Almost bought a P-38 once but I did enough research to realise it was an afterwar alloy
frame model. (pistol) Damn. There are three iconic guns I don't have yet, the Lugar,
P-38, and the M1911.

Some machines exude sex and hormones. Think Italian sports cars and the P-38 Lightning,
like Raquel in her advanced age, is still hot!


Wes

Yup, and they'll kill your ass. Jeff Ethell, the photographer, bought
it at Tillamook in the classic P-38 crash, engine out followed by spin
in. And his dad, a P-38 vet with 10,000 hrs witnessed the crash. The
manual says if you're below a fairly high speed, I think 120 with
flaps or thereabouts, and you lose an engine, you immediately chop the
other engine and go in straight ahead. Below some speed, and Ethell
was observed to be going "too slow", you can't keep that thing from
spinning on one engine.

Pete Keillor

On 09/14/2010 05:37 AM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:

As a general statement two speed superchargers were designed to give
max rated boost in low speed for takeoff, i.e. ~ sea level, while the
high speed was used at altitude. At least that is how the radial
engines were designed. After the advent of turbos, I don't believe
that two speed superchargers were used to any extent. At least the
C-97, which as far as I know, was the last strategic reciprocating
engine airplane used by the A.F. had a single speed supercharger and
turbos.

The procedure for shifting to high blower, by the way, involved
throttling back a bit, to prevent over boosting, shift to high speed,
and then reset throttles for desired manifold pressure.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)



John, did you fly on C-97s? I worked on a fleet
of Biscuit Bombers when I was stationed in Guam.


technomaNge
--
That's fine in practice, but
it will never work in theory.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:28:39 -0500, Comrade technomaNge
wrote:

On 09/14/2010 05:37 AM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:

As a general statement two speed superchargers were designed to give
max rated boost in low speed for takeoff, i.e. ~ sea level, while the
high speed was used at altitude. At least that is how the radial
engines were designed. After the advent of turbos, I don't believe
that two speed superchargers were used to any extent. At least the
C-97, which as far as I know, was the last strategic reciprocating
engine airplane used by the A.F. had a single speed supercharger and
turbos.

The procedure for shifting to high blower, by the way, involved
throttling back a bit, to prevent over boosting, shift to high speed,
and then reset throttles for desired manifold pressure.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)



John, did you fly on C-97s? I worked on a fleet
of Biscuit Bombers when I was stationed in Guam.


technomaNge

Nope, engine mech. C-97's at Bangor, Maine, B-50's and B-29's before
that. When the C-97's finally phased out I changed career fields. I
liked working on airplanes o.k., just not the 24 hours a day that SAC
demanded.
Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)