Aircraft Modifications

[Lightning Guy]

I don't take it as anything personal and I agree with everything you've said. When Lockheed ran the numbers of a Merlin powered Lightning the numbers were not really any different. The only real advantage I think the Merlin would have offered is a better reliability earlier in the war.

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I think that would start running into problems with weight. And all the extra weight ourboard the engines would do nothing for maneuverability. All in all, it's starting to look nothing like a P-38.

If you want to add fuel, I think a better option would be to add fuel in the enlarged center wing section from the Swordfish. Being closer to the rotational axis there would be less effect on roll rate.

Wings don't weigh that much, especially outside the landing gear. Added wing area would improve turn and climb rates, and it was clearly shown that properly designed wings that are not too long can be rather broad without harming manuverability. Rate of roll is more dependant on wing length than broadness. The main thing I'd change would be the sharp angle of rear of the wing, I'd make it more P-51 or P-47N like. Weight increases would mainly occur while there was fuel in the outer cells, which need not all be filled. P-47N's rolled very well, on a par with P-38L's.

And I agree, it might be a better idea to simply put the fuel behind the pilot and ammo store in the fuselage section, or make the fuselage section or booms a little taller to accomodate it. A taller fuselage center section with flat sides might improve lateral stability and make the P-38 a better gun platform.

I agree with all the changes I suggested it would not look that much like the P-38 we know - but each change is relatively minor from an engineering point of view, and the plane would actually be easier to construct.

The biggest change would be the gun package. What do you think about that? 2 x 20mm's with 250+ rpg, 5 x .50's with 400+ rpg. That's a lot of firepower!

=S=

Lunatic

[cheddar cheese]

That wouldnt be bad!

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Some Lanc's did have a ventral turret or gun position, but for some reason this was not felt worth the weight, crewman, or obstruction of the bombay in most Lancasters.

As well, the position where the turret was is where the H2S went. With the long bomb bay this is the only place it could go. When the Lancs started doing day bombing, the H2S was not needed and the belly gun position was re-installed.

There was a 'movement' to fit the P-38 with Merlins but lobbying by GM (Allison was a sub of GM) had it squashed.

The Allisons were more reliable than the early Merlins.


What I would do would be to give the Lanc a few more feet greater wingspan but would rather see the Halli replace the Lanc.

Anyone know why the Allison V-3420 when fitted to the B-29 (YB-39), even though gave the a/c better performance, were not used?

[cheddar cheese]

What I would do would be to give the Lanc a few more feet greater wingspan but would rather see the Halli replace the Lanc.

Me too! And in turn see the Stirling replace the Halifax. Fwaha!

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

As well, the position where the turret was is where the H2S went. With the long bomb bay this is the only place it could go. When the Lancs started doing day bombing, the H2S was not needed and the belly gun position was re-installed.

There was a 'movement' to fit the P-38 with Merlins but lobbying by GM (Allison was a sub of GM) had it squashed.

The Allisons were more reliable than the early Merlins.

And if you look at it there is really no advantage. The Merlin's with a single stage supercharger produce no more power than the equivalent Allision, and they run much rougher, and weigh about the same. And there were no production lines to produce a Merlin running the opposite direction.

The big advantage to the Merlin was its integral supercharger stage, which the Allison lacked. One could have been built for the Allison but the choice was to instead setup a Packard plant to produce Merlins, mostly so these could be supplied to the Brits to power Spitfires and Lancasters in addition to their use in the P-51. If this had not been done, the Continental Hyper-engine would probably have been produced, and it would have made even more power than either the Merlin or the Allison. The Hyper-engine was a "hemi" head design, and was ready to go but was not built because there was not sufficient tooling capacity to build both it and the Merlin.

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Me too! And in turn see the Stirling replace the Halifax. Fwaha!

I would not go that far Cheddar.

[KraziKanuK]

There was lots of bugs to be worked out of the Continental IV-1430. It never produced the power it was theoretically capable of. The Army did not help either.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

how would you modify the stirling?? becauce it would need major mods if it was to replace the lanc and halibag.............

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

There was lots of bugs to be worked out of the Continental IV-1430. It never produced the power it was theoretically capable of. The Army did not help either.

It was producing 1600 HP with a single stage supercharger, which is exactly what it was supposed to produce. All the "bugs" were worked ut by 1939. The problem with the XP-58 project was the result of continually changing Army specifications, which required increasingly larger engines for a increasingly heavy plane.

The IV-1430 was actually slated for production. When they decided to produce the Merlin, the Packard plant was already in the process of gearing up for the Continental engine, and was diverted to produce the Merlin instead.

It was a much more compact inverted V design than the Merlin or Allison, and it was also designed in such a way that it would be more damage resistant. On the otherhand, it was relatively heavy for its size because of this.

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

However, the first flight was delayed by problems with the experimental Continental engines, which were not yet cleared for flight operations at the time they were delivered to Lockheed in April 1942. It was not until November 14, 1942 that the XP-49 took to the air for the first time, flown by test pilot Joe Towle.

The aircraft was grounded only a week later for replacement of the engines by XIV-1430-13/15 engines

The initial flight tests of the XP-67 were delayed by fires in BOTH engines that broke out during a high-speed taxiing run at Lambert Field in St Louis on December 8, 1943. After being repaired, the XP-67 was trucked to Scott Field in Illinois. The first flight of the XP-67 took place there on January 6, 1944 with test pilot E. E. Elliott at the controls. However, this flight had to be abruptly terminated after only six minutes owing to engine problems.

This accident, plus the seemingly endless series of problems caused by the temperamental Continental engines, caused the USAAF to recommend that work on the XP-67 project be halted.

Estimated power of the IV-1430 in the P-67 was 1060hp from its hoped for 1350hp(G. White). The bugs were worked out? Does not look that way.

The Muskegon plant also built P&W R-1340s.

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

However, the first flight was delayed by problems with the experimental Continental engines, which were not yet cleared for flight operations at the time they were delivered to Lockheed in April 1942. It was not until November 14, 1942 that the XP-49 took to the air for the first time, flown by test pilot Joe Towle.

The aircraft was grounded only a week later for replacement of the engines by XIV-1430-13/15 engines

The initial flight tests of the XP-67 were delayed by fires in BOTH engines that broke out during a high-speed taxiing run at Lambert Field in St Louis on December 8, 1943. After being repaired, the XP-67 was trucked to Scott Field in Illinois. The first flight of the XP-67 took place there on January 6, 1944 with test pilot E. E. Elliott at the controls. However, this flight had to be abruptly terminated after only six minutes owing to engine problems.

This accident, plus the seemingly endless series of problems caused by the temperamental Continental engines, caused the USAAF to recommend that work on the XP-67 project be halted.

Estimated power of the IV-1430 in the P-67 was 1060hp from its hoped for 1350hp(G. White). The bugs were worked out? Does not look that way.

The Muskegon plant also built P&W R-1340s.

I've never seen that info. Perhaps you are right.

Only about 35 of the hyper-engines were built, none were "production" engines.

[Lightning Guy]

And the 'hyper-engine' projects ate up countless valuable hours of manpower without producing a single, combat-capable engine. One of the great flops in the history of the American aviation history if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

And the 'hyper-engine' projects ate up countless valuable hours of manpower without producing a single, combat-capable engine. One of the great flops in the history of the American aviation history if you ask me.

Umm... it ate up relatively few hours, mostly prior to the war. There were lots of such projects on all sides. The Bristol Centaraus project comes to mind as one of the biggest failed engine projects of the war. Far far more resources were spent on it than the hyper-engine, to produce a very few working bombers and left a few hundred Tempest II's sitting w/o a powerplant till after the war was over.

Had the hyper-engine recieved substantial attention, it probably would have worked fine. Instead, it recieved minimal focus, being relegated to a single rather minor project which was botched in many respects, not just the engine development.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

But the Centaraus did become a viable engine. And the Sea Fury with a Centaraus engine was one of the best piston-engined fighters of all time.