PDA

View Full Version : What If ™ USA had allowed T-S for export on 38s?



Daiichidoku
02-14-2008, 03:23 PM
US trade commision(?) had allowed turbo-supercharger tech out of USA in the P 38 for Britain, along with attendant opposing engine revolution

would the brits have improved (and/or perfected) the turbos, and perhaps found an earlier solution to compress.?

id like to think they would have, and obliviated need for war-winning mustangs

discuss

Daiichidoku
02-14-2008, 03:23 PM
US trade commision(?) had allowed turbo-supercharger tech out of USA in the P 38 for Britain, along with attendant opposing engine revolution

would the brits have improved (and/or perfected) the turbos, and perhaps found an earlier solution to compress.?

id like to think they would have, and obliviated need for war-winning mustangs

discuss

HayateAce
02-14-2008, 03:32 PM
38-pager......

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-14-2008, 03:33 PM
At least http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hi_stik
02-14-2008, 03:37 PM
well, clearly the Brits would have solved these problems, and brought the engine/air-induction systems up to speed...But I suspect they'd have failed to solve the pilot-comfort issue. They most likely would have dragooned midget coalers into the cockpit, and installed a heavy coal-fired iron heating system, adding thousands of pounds to the airframe, slowing it down immeasurably...so no, the P-51 was the way to go...

BillyTheKid_22
02-14-2008, 04:25 PM
http://www.sun-n-fun.org/content/images/interior/museum/DisplayAC/mitchellp-38.jpg



Mitchell P-38!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skoshi Tiger
02-14-2008, 04:35 PM
I think they would have stuck with their gear driven superchargers. They worked fine and were more compact, and didn't have the complicated ducts and plumbing that the turbo had! (P38 and P47 are good examples of these)


Also they don't suffer from turbo lag, which may not be a problem in an aero engine, but sux on my wifes 4x4! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As a side note I wonder why the British didn't replace the Alisons on their castrated lightnings with Merlins? (Hey you beat me to it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Daiichidoku
02-14-2008, 04:40 PM
forgot...maybe brits would find the TS gear too much, and stick a coupla merlins in, making an early "K", producing orders and production

ploughman
02-14-2008, 04:50 PM
Not fair, posting a 38 topic when Tag's on holiday.

ElAurens
02-14-2008, 04:55 PM
The RAF would have come to the same conclusion the USAAF did.

The P38 was too expensive to keep in the inventory.

Economics for the win.

berg417448
02-14-2008, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
forgot...maybe brits would find the TS gear too much, and stick a coupla merlins in, making an early "K", producing orders and production </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "K" wasn't a Merlin equipped P-38.It was a significantly modified P-38E and had Allisons.

berg417448
02-14-2008, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The RAF would have come to the same conclusion the USAAF did.

The P38 was too expensive to keep in the inventory.

Economics for the win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point. The P-38 was literally twice as expensive as a Mustang.

Irish_Rogues
02-14-2008, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The RAF would have come to the same conclusion the USAAF did.

The P38 was too expensive to keep in the inventory.

Economics for the win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's a good point. The P-38 was literally twice as expensive as a Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

berg417448
02-14-2008, 05:15 PM
1942 cost figures:

P-38 $120,407
P-51 $ 58,698

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t082.pdf

Sergio_101
02-14-2008, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The RAF would have come to the same conclusion the USAAF did.

The P38 was too expensive to keep in the inventory.

Economics for the win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's a good point. The P-38 was literally twice as expensive as a Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

****_O_Chew, as I remember it part of the problem
if not the whole problem was that the Brits wanted the
same engine that Powered the P-40 for logistics reasons.

They could have got turbos, but rejected them.

By the way, I ain't Patroit Act. Any Mod can check my IP number.
Grow up.

Sergio

Schwarz.13
02-14-2008, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
****_O_Chew, as I remember it part of the problem
if not the whole problem was that the Brits wanted the
same engine that Powered the P-40 for logistics reasons.

They could have got turbos, but rejected them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure that is not the case - as i remember reading, us Brits received some p-38s minus the superchargers which you Yanks withheld for some reason or another but this made for such a dramatic loss in performance that these p-38s were dubbed 'castrated Lightnings' or something similar and they were rejected for that reason!

However, this could be one of those famous WWII myths but i'm pretty sure it's correct (i'm just home from a double-shift so i won't be trying to verify that now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the way, I ain't Patroit Act. Any Mod can check my IP number.
Grow up.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did i miss something? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

R_Target
02-14-2008, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
I'm pretty sure that is not the case - as i remember reading, us Brits received some p-38s minus the superchargers which you Yanks withheld for some reason or another but this made for such a dramatic loss in performance that these p-38s were dubbed 'castrated Lightnings' or something similar and they were rejected for that reason! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British Purchasing Commission ordered the planes with unhanded engines and without turbos.

Gibbage1
02-14-2008, 07:16 PM
Fact #1, the BRITISH asked for the turbo's REMOVED. The Model 322 was made to BRITISH specifications.

#2, the BRITISH already were receiving B-17's with the GE turbo's. 4 on each B-17, so NO, the US did NOT have a problem sharing the GE units.

Also, the British REMOVED the 37MM canon, and 2 .50's and replace it with 2 .303's.

So, they order a high altitude bomber interceptor, REMOVE the turbo's, and its firepower. It sounds like the British WANTED the P-38 to fail.

CUJO_1970
02-14-2008, 07:40 PM
Why would Britain want the P-38 when they already had a vastly superior twin?

http://modelbau.hp.infoseek.co.jp/48_ww2/uk/MosquitoFII_5.jpg

Gibbage1
02-14-2008, 07:48 PM
I know your just fishing, but the P-38 was better on about ALL counts then the Mossy. Was faster, could carry more, fly longer, climb faster, and did it all with just 1 pilot.

R_Target
02-14-2008, 08:09 PM
http://i31.tinypic.com/eq5vuu.gif

Daiichidoku
02-14-2008, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
forgot...maybe brits would find the TS gear too much, and stick a coupla merlins in, making an early "K", producing orders and production </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "K" wasn't a Merlin equipped P-38.It was a significantly modified P-38E and had Allisons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know

that why the " " for K http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif a "special"

HayateAce
02-14-2008, 11:24 PM
pwned.

Ne1 care to take a mossie 1v1 against any variant P38?
.................

hm?

Somebody?

http://www.kelleycows.com/images/p38.jpg

Gibbage1
02-14-2008, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightningAce:

Ne1 care to take a mossie 1v1 against any variant P38?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should change your name?

HayateAce
02-14-2008, 11:46 PM
Good Ideer Oh Lord!

http://www.geocities.com/televisioncity/4766/film/hg/god.jpg

Copperhead311th
02-15-2008, 06:25 AM
OMG WHY TF would they want 303's?! that's just stuck on stupid. and could you imgagine hitting something with a p-38 armed with the nose .50's a 37mm cannon and the .50 gunpods! OMG at the fire power.

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2008, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Not fair, posting a 38 topic when Tag's on holiday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What?

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2008, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
US trade commision(?) had allowed turbo-supercharger tech out of USA in the P 38 for Britain, along with attendant opposing engine revolution </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For what ever reason..

Had the Brits had the US configed 38s

The war would have been won by the allied much sooner than it was..

Be sure

Daiichidoku
02-15-2008, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Not fair, posting a 38 topic when Tag's on holiday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

surprised?

in 70 yrs, when someone posts about 38s, TAGERT will rise from the grave to post...nothing will stop him, not even B hammers (oops!)

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-15-2008, 10:23 AM
It was the 'Free Tagert' thread in OT that did it.

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2008, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
It was the 'Free Tagert' thread in OT that did it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

Did I miss something?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-15-2008, 11:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/9381066336 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2008, 11:53 AM
Orly!

Patriot_Act
02-15-2008, 11:58 AM
Wow, this thread is based on propaganda and dis information!

Quote from Joe Baugher

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p38_7.html)

"Both the British and French delegations insisted that the Lockheed fighters be equipped with Allison engines without turbosuperchargers and with strictly right-handed rotation. This was because they wanted the engines to be interchangeable with those of the Curtiss H.81A Tomahawk which had been ordered by both Britain and France in great numbers. In addition, the Committee wanted to optimize the aircraft for medium-altitude combat as was currently the dominant mode of aerial warfare in Europe, rather than the high-altitude role for which the P-38 had originally been designed."

Daiichidoku, history ain't your strong point?
You missed the boat on this one.

P.A.

Aaron_GT
02-15-2008, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know your just fishing, but the P-38 was better on about ALL counts then the Mossy. Was faster, could carry more, fly longer, climb faster, and did it all with just 1 pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mosquito could carry an 8000lb bomb load in theory.

The first Mosquito for testing for use with a 4000lb cookie bombload was first ballasted by Hatfield, and then ballasted again by 4000lb by the RAF for tests. They flew it several times with an 8000lb load before realising the error.

What was a problem was fitting 8000lb internally - two cookies wouldn't have fitted, and there were some stability problems caused by the cookie wobbling as it was.

In terms of speed the Mosquito and P-38 were each best at various points, the Mosquito being faster in 1942, but the P-38L with WEP at the end of the war at 443mph eclipsing the late war Mosquito bombers (425mph).

The P-38 was definitely a better fighter
(its negative point being its lesser firepower) and more maneouverable. Partly the Mosquito was hampered in the fighter bomber role by not having inner wings stressed for bombs (due to the radiators being in the way) and the outer wings only being stressed for 500lb loads, meaning that the P-38 could carry more in the fighter bomber configuration. A P38-L and Mosquito VI with late war boost would have been pretty much equal on the desk (354 mph for the Mosquito).

As a pure bomber the P-38 lacked a navigator and also all its ordnance had to be external, so with a 4000lb load it was slower than the bomber Mosquitos.

Where the P-38 really spanked the Mosquito was in climb rate. The P-38L's ROC at sea level was approaching twice that of the Mosquito.

Aaron_GT
02-15-2008, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ne1 care to take a mossie 1v1 against any variant P38? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not in the sim! We have a 1942 Mosquito and 1944 Lightnings, pretty much. So that's quite a disadvantage for the Mosquito, even if the Mosquito was a dogfighter, whereas it's really a bomber/photo recon that's had guns thrown in it. A good bomber/recon, but it's no dogfighter.

At the weekend I set up a dogfight with 4 Mosquito VIs versus 4 1944 Fw 190Ds at 3000m. It was surprisingly a draw. I downed one of the 190Ds outright early on, and a wing man another, for the loss of one Mosquito. By that time the furball was on the deck, and there was almost no way to get a firing solution on the AI 190Ds. It was a case of lots of extending, coming back to the 190s to have them move out of the way at the last moment. In the end I lost an engine and limped off into the sunset with one engine feathered, covered by my wing man.

If we had something other than 1942 Mosquitos I might give the P-38 challenge a try, but with the better manouverability of the P-38 it would be losing proposition.

Gibbage1
02-15-2008, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

The Mosquito could carry an 8000lb bomb load in theory.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In "theory", but how many Mossy's were toting 8000lb too Berlin? The P-38's max bomb load was 4400lb. Please correct me if im wrong, as I dont know a LOT about the Mossy, but the FB's had the forward half of its bomb bay taken by the 20MM's? That means that it could only carry 2 bombs in its bay. Mostly 250lb. They slung another 2 250lb bombs under the wing. Later up-engined mk's could carry 2 500lb, for a total of 1500lb for the FB model?

Also, from what I remember, the B model that could carry the 4000lb bomb load had no guns? Is this true?

So, the FB model could carry 1500lb max bomb, with guns, and the B model could carry 4000lb no guns. P-38 on the otherhand could carry 4400lb (2x 2000lb bombs, and 10x HVAR) and still retain its guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In terms of speed the Mosquito and P-38 were each best at various points, the Mosquito being faster in 1942, but the P-38L with WEP at the end of the war at 443mph eclipsing the late war Mosquito bombers (425mph).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most web page's says the Mossy was about 415MPH tops. Here is a chart showing the P-38G (early model) doing ~418MPH.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38g-chart.jpg

I may have been hasty when I said the P-38 was faster. They were rather equal I think. The Mossy having a higher cruising speed give it an advantage though, since its closer to the top speed though most of the flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As a pure bomber the P-38 lacked a navigator
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that too the poor chap stuck in the nose.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p38-8.jpg

Sergio_101
02-15-2008, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Why would Britain want the P-38 when they already had a vastly superior twin?

http://modelbau.hp.infoseek.co.jp/48_ww2/uk/MosquitoFII_5.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than an internal bomb bay I fail to see where
the Mosquito is superior in any way.
Not dissing the Mossie, it was a wonderful machine.
Different aircraft for different roles.
The greatest sin in the P-38 story was the failure
to adopt the P-38K.
It was a true world beater.
Top speeds exceeding 450mph, time to climb as quick
as the P-51G, just under 5 minutes from brake release to 20,000'.

Fully loaded initial climb of OVER 4,000fpm!

Why in hell did the P-38K get the pass?
It would have cost no more and the delay to get
it into production would have been insignificant.

I vote the P-38K as the best fighter to get shelved in WWII.

Sergio

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2008, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Why would Britain want the P-38 when they already had a vastly superior twin?

http://modelbau.hp.infoseek.co.jp/48_ww2/uk/MosquitoFII_5.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Sorry, I`m British so the Mossy is better and no chatback, thankyou.

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2008, 05:08 PM
http://www.truecolorearth.com/tce-Nile-River-delta.jpg

MB_Avro_UK
02-15-2008, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Why would Britain want the P-38 when they already had a vastly superior twin?

http://modelbau.hp.infoseek.co.jp/48_ww2/uk/MosquitoFII_5.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Sorry, I`m British so the Mossy is better and no chatback, thankyou. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to say sorry! I'm British also and the Mosquito had the potential to replace RAF and US heavy Bombers in a strategic role.

The P-38 could not have done this.

If the Mosquito had been an American design, the attitudes on this forum may have been different?

Why is it that a number of American members on this forum are so ready to criticise British aircraft?

Do you see at anytime on this forum British members criticising US aircraft?

I rate US aircraft very highly, especially the B-17 and P-51.

We fought on the same side and died together....

Sigh..

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
02-15-2008, 05:33 PM
Speak for yourself, I never fought in WWII and I never died neither.

Nice planes.

berg417448
02-15-2008, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:



Do you see at anytime on this forum British members criticising US aircraft


MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes. Be honest. It has happened a number of times on these forums through the years. It is all a bit silly but folks get silly over things such as their favorite football team too.

Sergio_101
02-15-2008, 06:57 PM
I am not criticising the Mosquito.
I am criticising the comment that the Mosquito is "vastly better".

That comment fails the test. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Mosquito was to sluggish in climb and turn rate to be an effective day fighter.

P-38 was designed as a pute interceptor, no bomb bay was needed.

As a fighter, P-38 pilots scored a few more kills than Mosquito drivers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

As a bomber the Mosquito was a bit better, maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
In the Pacific the P-38 saw extensive action in the attack role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
in a climate that would have rendered the wooden Mosquito into a termite mound in short order. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Vastly better? Show me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sergio

Badsight-
02-15-2008, 10:04 PM
P-38's needed expert pilots to get the best out of them in aircombat

they are higher workload planes to fly

it would be interesting to see what kind of spec the P-38 would have ended up with if the Brits had used them from 42 thru 45

VW-IceFire
02-15-2008, 10:05 PM
Kind of silly to compare the Mossie and the P-38. The Mosquito was designed from the outset to be fast bomber with a pretty radical concept of having no defensive armament and relying on speed alone as a defensive measure. The P-38 was conceived as a high altitude continental defense interceptor. Quite different roles from the outset.

The P-38 is more agile and certainly the better fighter. The Mossie has the option of carrying more ordinance in the bomber role and has greater firepower options in the fighter-bomber variant (57mm cannon anyone?). The in-game model is a poor representation of what the Mosquito is possible of and it already outruns everything up to 1944. A Mosquito with 1944 specs and better engines would be able to climb and run with most types of aircraft....but it still wouldn't compete with the Lightning as a fighter.

ImpStarDuece
02-16-2008, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I am not criticising the Mosquito.
I am criticising the comment that the Mosquito is "vastly better".

That comment fails the test. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Mosquito was to sluggish in climb and turn rate to be an effective day fighter.

P-38 was designed as a pute interceptor, no bomb bay was needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Design the P-38 with an co-pilot, internal bombay capable of handling a 3' 2" diameter 4,000 lbs cookie (or 6 x 500 lbrs, or even 4 x 500 lbrs), make it out of wood, take away the turbosuperchargers and then see how it performs as a day fighter...

While they might be twin engined designs, that is about the only thing that they had in common.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a fighter, P-38 pilots scored a few more kills than Mosquito drivers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a bomber, the Mosquito droped a few more tonnes of bombs than the P-38. Your point?

As a night fighter, I wonder which scored more kills?

There might of been a few more P-38s around too.

Of course, if you get rid of the bomb-bay and the co-pilot, you end up with the Hornet. And I wonder which was the better day fighter (even if you take the Hornet back a few years and equip it with Merlin 20 or Merlin 60 family engines)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a bomber the Mosquito was a bit better, maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because the Mosquito was designed as a bomber, while the P-38 was designed as a fighter? Horses for courses and all that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the Pacific the P-38 saw extensive action in the attack role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

in a climate that would have rendered the wooden Mosquito into a termite mound in short order. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, your misinformed (as usual).

The Mosquito glue delaminating in the tropics was limited to three examples, sent over as part of an early trial to assertain the suitabilityof types to operating in Burma. The later phenol impregnated resin was essentially insect proof and worked very well in the tropics. Much of the 'tropic' glue's properties were adopted to be used on European Mosquitos.

The major problem with the Mosquito in the Tropics was the balsa around the lower cockpit warping due to the humidity. Apart from that, it performed very sucessfully as a fighter bomber and PR aircraft in Burma.

There were more problems with the glue (and incorrect attachment of the upper wing surface to the main spar) in Europe than there were in the Far East or Pacific.

In fact, the experiance in Europe suggests that the Mossie was simpler to operate, maintain and repair than the P-38, with its heavy and complicated turbosuperchargers and other systems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Vastly better? Show me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any category you can name that the P-38 excelled in, I can name one where the Mossie excelled in.

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In "theory", but how many Mossy's were toting 8000lb too Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None, which I thought was pretty obvious from my post! They did go to Berlin with a 4000lb bombload. The P-38 could not AFAIK, do so with 4400lbs as it would not be carrying external tanks (but I am willing to be corrected on this). Hence my statement that the Mosquito was a better level bomber (which was what it was designd to be). Certainly Hap Arnold was impressed but de Havilland didn't have resources to set up production in the USA as he would have liked although some components from the USA (plus engines) went into Canadian made examples.

As a pure fighter or fighter bomber the P-38 is superior, with its only weak point in comparison really bing the lower fixed armament. At SL the Mosquito is not speed competitive, but would be closer at boost level matching the P-38 model dates.

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most web page's says the Mossy was about 415MPH tops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best Mosquito books are out of print, but I have copies and tend to hav better information than web pages, There are some scans of RAF reports out there, though, on the web. Mosquito speed is a tricky one to unpick as there were several different engine models per mark, plus different boosts and different exhaust systems.

The B.XVI in late 1944 boost could typically do 409 at about 25k (books not to hand) loaded, 425 at about 28k after dropping bombs. Earlier B.IVs in 1942 were 385 max. So there is a fair bit of variation over those 2 years.

It's a fair point about the FB.VIs load on a mission being lower, although the B models would have had the advantage of bomb sights and so a more apt comparison would be with the droop snoot P-38 with the glazed nose.

As a fighter bomber the P-38 wins as it had the space for a much higher bombload in that configuration.

Ratsack
02-16-2008, 05:23 AM
It's more than a little unedifying seeing the P-38 partisans having to compare their bird to a bomber in an attempt to make it look good.

Ratsack

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tell that too the poor chap stuck in the nose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you lose the P-38's fixed armament. How many were in USAAF service compared to Mosquito B models in USAAF service?

I suspect with a 4400lb load the droop snoots range would have been shorter than the Mosquito B as, AFAIK you could not use external tanks as well. Also with externl drag I would suspect it would be slower, but I don't have figures for a P-38 with that load.

Mosquito: better level bomber an nightfighter (heavier forward armament, better crew layout for using AI), P-38 better fighter and fighter bomber. And for good measure the P-61 a better night intruder as P-61C (with the improved engines ad decent speed). The A-26's a better attack bomber than the Mosquito. The Mossie had the skies in 1942-mid 44 before the P-61 and A-26 were fully in service.

I like twins and wish I had multiple books each on the P-38, A-26, P-61 (and many others) but it gets expensive, especially when so many good ones are out of print.

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">in a climate that would have rendered the wooden Mosquito into a termite mound in short order. Demonic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er... they served extensively in the war in the east in the CBI theatre icluding some rather humid places. The first trils planes had issues until glue and dope formulations were changed and then all was fine. The Hornet (similar construction but with a bonded combination wood/metal spar) served in humid Malaya for many years (from memory 8 years)

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mosquito was to sluggish in climb and turn rate to be an effective day fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No argument from me there. Its climb was espeially mediocre

Aaron_GT
02-16-2008, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he Mosquito was designed from the outset to be fast bomber with a pretty radical concept of having no defensive armament and relying on speed alone as a defensive measure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Handley-Page proposed an unarmed twin in 1937, so the concept was out there, but the HP design got short shrift. It was the fact that the mosquito used non-critical workers (the raw materials were critical as the wood was imported) and Wilfrid Freeman got the Mosquio built where HP failed.

The Hornet development was slow. It could have flown in combat in Europe in 1944 but de Havilland had too few staff, production lines in Canada and Australia to start and a jet engine and fighter to build (also delayed due to support for the XP-80). But it was not to be.

But we are being rude and hijacking theP-38 thread so I'll start a Mosquito one.

ElAurens
02-16-2008, 07:23 AM
Interestingly the P61 "Black Widow" was used in the intruder role as an attack aircraft, as well as a night fighter.

It seems tailor made for this actually. aircooled engines that are less susceptible to damage from ground fire, rather good maneuverability, heavy forward firing weapons package of 4 Hispanos and even more if the 4 .50 dorsal turret was fitted, and the ability to carry a fair bomb load.

I agree Aaron... More twins!!!

Bremspropeller
02-16-2008, 07:30 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40101000/jpg/_40101954_bushtwins.jpg
Agree, twins are über!

Korolov1986
02-16-2008, 08:28 AM
Instead of griping about which aircraft is better, perhaps we ought to consider how well they would have worked together.

horseback
02-16-2008, 09:33 AM
Before we degenerate into the Mossie vs Lightning debate, could we agree that <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the two aircraft were designed with vastly different missions in mind?</span>

As to the British getting the standard turbosupercharged P-38 in 1941/2 and actually accomplishing anything with it (the original subject of this thread), I just don't see it happening.

The RAF during this period was convinced that if you had a 'trained' pilot, you could throw him into any similar role aircraft, and he should be just as effective in it as he was in the last type he was in in the same role (fighter, bomber, recon, etc.). Hence, you saw Hurricane pilots going directly into combat missions with Tomahawks and getting butchered in N Africa, and so on.

It took them a while to see the value of type conversion training (admittedly, they were under some stress during the early war. Necessity can be a Mother), and for anyone coming off of single engine fighters, or even Mossie nightfighters/intruders, going to the Lightning would have been brutally hard. RAF fighter types who 'sampled' the Lightning during the early war had no way of assessing its full capability, and almost uniformly hated it.

Late war assessments declared baldly that it took the average trained fighter pilot twice as long to become combat effective in the Lightning as it did for him to do so in the standard single engine types.

The cockpit was unnecessarily complicated and its layout was pretty unorthodox. Key controls were poorly located and very little thought was given to the fact that they would be operated by guys wearing thick leather suits & gloves(and still freezing). I believe that the USAAF probably had 'frozen' the prototype YP-38 cockpit design in order to help keep production up as soon as it became apparent that the P-38 was the only operational American fighter remotely ready for modern combat. Unfortunately, Lockheed was not able to meet the production demands for the Lightning during the early war, and coupled with problems meeting RAF contracts with other types like the Vega, that was probably the biggest contributor to the British cancelling their contracts for the Lightning I long before they ever took delivery of a single P-322.

It was never remotely available in the desired numbers even to US forces until long after the Mustang and P-47 had established their primacy in the ETO.

In RAF hands, it would probably have best been used for Home Defense, in its intended role as an interceptor, freeing up several (more) squadrons of the shorter legged Spitfires. But that should have called for a complete redesign of the cockpit to British specs, and I don't think the USAAF would have permitted it.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interestingly the P61 "Black Widow" was used in the intruder role as an attack aircraft, as well as a night fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was used primarily in the intruder role, and very little in the nightfighter role in the end. The version what would have made a superlative nightfighter - the C version - arrived too late. There wasn't much to shoot at.

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cockpit was unnecessarily complicated and its layout was pretty unorthodox. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ergonomics seemed to be unknown as a science at the time. The biggest praise for the Martin-Baker MB-5, for example, seems to have been for its cockpit layout and it seems to have been mostly influential in this respect.

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe that the USAAF probably had 'frozen' the prototype YP-38 cockpit design in order to help keep production up as soon as it became apparent that the P-38 was the only operational American fighter remotely ready for modern combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took a few versions (with supercharging) to even get it up to acceptable standards for the USAAF. This isn't an adverse comment, more a statement that it was an advanced type for the time with a number of teething problems. What the RAF needed at the time was something relatively cheap and simple, and I suspect price compared to the projected Mustang price was also a factor in the cancellation. A half-price lower maintenance aircraft with relatively similar performance in the interceptor role would have been more attractive to cash and personnel-strapped Britain at the time. In the end the Mustang took some tweaking too until it was at its pinnacle, but the first models were in place relatively quickly, ahead of perhaps its nearest UK competitor the Tempest (the Typhoon being a disappointment in Camm's eyes from the first prototype flew, and I get the impression Camm's real favourite was the Tornado anyway).

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 10:22 AM
I played around P-38J versus FB.VI (1942) as that's the closest year match up possible, against an AI P-38. In the Mosquito I could mostly stay out of the way of the AI, but the AI could disengage at will, no chance of catching it if it executed a gentle climb. No surprise. The AI wasn't very agressive and didn't come back for repeated passes so it was a draw (disengaged).

Reversing the positions climbing away from the Mosquito and coming in for repeated passes on the AI was no problem (again, no surprises there). Compressibility killed me once out of 10 tries, and collision with a rapidly slowing Mosquito another. The rest were kills by the P-38, but it did take a number of passes as the Mosquito can take a good amount of damage (which seems correct) and the P-38 has only medium firepower. Coming in close helps, provided the Mosquito doesn't slow down quickly (maybe the AI is chopping power) and you don't plough into the back of it.

wayno7777
02-18-2008, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The greatest sin in the P-38 story was the failure
to adopt the P-38K.


Why in hell did the P-38K get the pass?
It would have cost no more and the delay to get
it into production would have been insignificant.

I vote the P-38K as the best fighter to get shelved in WWII.

Sergio[/QUOTE]

It would have stopped the production line for two to three weeks to retool. USAAF brass said that was too long a pause....

R_Target
02-18-2008, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
ergonomics seemed to be unknown as a science at the time. The biggest praise for the Martin-Baker MB-5, for example, seems to have been for its cockpit layout and it seems to have been mostly influential in this respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grumman planes were widely praised for their cockpit layouts, and the USN used this against Vought to force a major redesign of the F4U-4 cockpit.

Test pilot Corky Meyer said the P-38 had the most disorganized and counter-intuitive pit of any plane he ever flew, except the Spitfire, which he rated even worse. He enjoyed flying both however.

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 12:24 PM
From memory Eric Brown had similar comments.

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why in hell did the P-38K get the pass? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect it was because the P-38 was probably seen as an expensive luxury by that point, but with contracted production and wanting to keep Lockheed's skilled workforce in situ, it might have been seen as expedient to continue P-38 production but without major changes.

This happened a few times in WW2, a British example being with Bristol producing the Buckingham, which was too late and dissapointing, but production was kept up to keep Bristol's workforce together, even though most of the aircraft were put into storage without engines, and then broken up without ever flying. At least the P-38s were used.

In other bits of industry in both the USA and UK there were examples of obselete equipment being produced, and sometimes going straight into storage. Collectors love that stuff.

Doug_Thompson
02-18-2008, 01:36 PM
Re: Putting two Merlins into a P-38.

One P-38 instead of two Spitfires was a bad deal. Economically, Britain was stretched to the limit. A long-range fighter was needed, but so were short range air superiority planes. Necessity won out.

(edited P.S.) After Packard started building Merlin engines in the U.S., there was a move to put Merlins in the P-38. If memory serves, Allison fought the move tooth and nail in both the War Department bureaucracy and in Congress. It would have cost the company millions. That's a harsh accusation to make just from memory, so I'll try and back that up with a source when I can find one.

On a related note, did they ever come up with an engine supercharger for the Allison that didn't require all that ductwork?

R_Target
02-18-2008, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
On a related note, did they ever come up with an engine supercharger for the Allison that didn't require all that ductwork? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than the single-stage that all Allisons had, I don't think they did. It's too bad because some pilots considered the Allison more reliable than the Merlin, in addition to being 300 lbs lighter.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if GM fought the War Production Board over P-38 engines, but it's not as if they didn't have thousands of P-40s and P-39s still coming off the lines.

Did RR even make a left-hand drive Merlin?

Aaron_GT
02-18-2008, 02:47 PM
Rolls-Royce made handed Merlins. They went into the Hornet, but I think by that point the days of the Merlin were almost over and the interest was in jets.

R_Target
02-18-2008, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Rolls-Royce made handed Merlins. They went into the Hornet, but I think by that point the days of the Merlin were almost over and the interest was in jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So this would be late/post-war period? I was just wondering if left-handed Merlins were in production during the war.

A Sea Hornet for the Korea project would be a real treat.

Gibbage1
02-18-2008, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
(edited P.S.) After Packard started building Merlin engines in the U.S., there was a move to put Merlins in the P-38. If memory serves, Allison fought the move tooth and nail in both the War Department bureaucracy and in Congress. It would have cost the company millions. That's a harsh accusation to make just from memory, so I'll try and back that up with a source when I can find one.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin powered mustang project was the P-38K. The problem was always the fact that the war dept didnt want to give up any Merlins. They would need to take them away from P-51's. I never heard Allison complaining. Im sure they did, but I dont think they had any bearing on the P-38 not getting Merlins. It was more a supply and demand. There was a big supply of Allisons, and only the P-38 used them once the P-40 production stopped. P-39 also used them, but a lot less. P-51 was the only Merlin powered US fighter to serv in the war.

Its funny. Allison had the P-38, Merlin had the P-51, and P&W had the P-47, F4U and F6F, and Wright had the bombers. The US had 4 very good engine choices, but you didnt see much swapping about other then the P-51 going from Allison to Merlin, and the F4F going from a Wright 1820 to a P&W 1830.

Doug_Thompson
02-18-2008, 04:06 PM
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/P-38K.html)

Zyzbot posted this link on another thread. It cites no sources, but concludes "The prospect of such a modification would have been daunting. This was no simple engine swap, it required large portions of the airframe to be completely redesigned." Retooling would have taken months, it said.

On a related note, the Lysholm roter that is widely used in superchargers today was perfected as early as 1935, but manufacturing the precision roters was extremely demanding. Same thing for pressure wave superchargers, only moreso. So I don't know of any supercharger that could have been easily fitted to the Allison except the turbocharger that was used in the P-38.

The Wankel engine was originally designed as a supercharger, I think, but it would have been difficult to make too even if somebody had thought about it in time.

berg417448
02-18-2008, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

The Merlin powered mustang project was the P-38K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The P-38K was a highly modified P-38E and was equipped with Allisons, not Merlins.

All the details of modifications are discussed here:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/P-38K.html)

R_Target
02-18-2008, 05:03 PM
XP-38K: V-1710-75/77, 1425 T.O. HP at 54" Hg

Patriot_Act
02-18-2008, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
XP-38K: V-1710-75/77, 1425 T.O. HP at 54" Hg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legend has it that RR got two model 322 s to convert to Merlins.
The USAAF quickly demanded the work stop when they caught wind of it.

What is fact is that RR indeed was going to try the swap.

What is also fact is that the RR Merlin would have gained
nothing over the late Allisons except for a little space davings
and a few lbs.
Both the sole P-38K and the test mule were Allison powered.
No Merlin powered P-38 was ever assembled.

"There was only one P-38K-1-LO built. This prototype (42-13558)
combined a P-38G-10-LO airframe with more powerful 1425 hp
V-1710-75/77 (V-1710F-15) engines, rated at over 1875 hp war emergency power."

Credit http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_14.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p38_14.html)

Gibbage1, so far your posts have been accurate and informative.
You went face first in yer mashed potatos on this one.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

P.A.

Daiichidoku
02-18-2008, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
On a related note, did they ever come up with an engine supercharger for the Allison that didn't require all that ductwork? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"turbo-compound"

Patriot_Act
02-18-2008, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
On a related note, did they ever come up with an engine supercharger for the Allison that didn't require all that ductwork? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"turbo-compound" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG AGAIN mr Daiichidoku.

Turbo compounding requires more ducting than simple
turbocharging.

There was a two stage variable speed version of the supercharger for the Allison.
It worked well and delivered a step free boost pressure
up to critical altitude, about 28,000 feet.
Horsepower on these late Allisons varied quite a bit and in their final forms
in the F-82E they could deliver 2,200+ at 3,400 rpm for brief periods.
Aircraft using the two stage Allisons were the P-63, all versions, and the
F-82D and up.

There were a few test Allisons run using turbo compounding.
horsepower was at least 2,900hp! Some runs produced over 3,100 hp.
In the case of the Allison turbocompound engine it used a "pressure turbine"
that was a recovery turbine only, no agumentation.

Curtiss Wright was the only large scale producer of turbo compounded engines.
The excellent R-3350TCW series used three "Blow Down" power recovery turbines
per engine. Power levels were as high as 3,800 hp for take off!
Typically the rated power for airline use was between 3250 and 3,700 hp.
Again there was no augumentation.

In a turbocompounded aircraft engine the power recovered at maximum power
is about 25%~. Part of the reason for such a high recovery percentage is that
all these engines are supercharged and therefore have a high percentage of wasted
exhaust energy/heat.

Power levels can be higher with augumentation as in the case of the P&W R-4360VDT and Napier Nomad.
Those engines are more accurately referred to as hybrids.

P.A.

Patriot_Act
02-18-2008, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
(edited P.S.) After Packard started building Merlin engines in the U.S., there was a move to put Merlins in the P-38. If memory serves, Allison fought the move tooth and nail in both the War Department bureaucracy and in Congress. It would have cost the company millions. That's a harsh accusation to make just from memory, so I'll try and back that up with a source when I can find one.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin powered mustang project was the P-38K. The problem was always the fact that the war dept didnt want to give up any Merlins. They would need to take them away from P-51's. I never heard Allison complaining. Im sure they did, but I dont think they had any bearing on the P-38 not getting Merlins. It was more a supply and demand. There was a big supply of Allisons, and only the P-38 used them once the P-40 production stopped. P-39 also used them, but a lot less. P-51 was the only Merlin powered US fighter to serv in the war.

Its funny. Allison had the P-38, Merlin had the P-51, and P&W had the P-47, F4U and F6F, and Wright had the bombers. The US had 4 very good engine choices, but you didnt see much swapping about other then the P-51 going from Allison to Merlin, and the F4F going from a Wright 1820 to a P&W 1830. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 did indeed convert to the Merlin.
But it was to convert back, but the war ended or jets took over. Twin Mustangs again got the Allison after the P-82B model.

As I already noted, the P-38K was Allison powered, there was no Merlin powered P-38 to date.

Wright did not own the bombers at all. Notable exceptions are to many to get into here. I'll mention
only two. Martin B-26 (P&W R-2800) and the entire B-24/PB4Y series, (P&W R-1830) over 18,000 B-24s were built.

As to the Wildcat, the first Wildcats were all P&W powered. (R-1830-40 for most). Later the British "Martlets"
and GM built FM-2s were Wright R-1820 powered. R-1820-56WA for the FM-2. So the switch was from P&W to Wright.

First F-6F Hellcat, the XF6F-1 was Wright R-2600-10 powered. That was the only non P&W powered Hellcat built.

At war's end the only users of the Allison V-1719 was the P-38, P-63 and spares for the older users of the V-1710.

A similar problem happened to Wright. They actually had a layoff in May 1945!
B-17 production stopped abruptly in early May with VE day and the demand for those R-1820-97s virtually ceased.

Pretty poor post mr Gibbage, not up to your usualy high standards.

P.A.

steiner562
02-18-2008, 10:19 PM
What big colour book did you type that from PA?

Patriot_Act
02-19-2008, 12:23 AM
"The American Fighter" Angelucci&Bowers.
Also from Joe Baughers web page.

Got more sources if you wish.

P.A.

steiner562 and other luftwhiners on this board have an agenda.
they want to eliminate the competition by insulting us to the point of blowing
up and getting ourselves banned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It ain't gonna happen kid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Patriot_Act
02-19-2008, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Rolls-Royce made handed Merlins. They went into the Hornet, but I think by that point the days of the Merlin were almost over and the interest was in jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So this would be late/post-war period? I was just wondering if left-handed Merlins were in production during the war.

A Sea Hornet for the Korea project would be a real treat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050317-F-1234P-032.jpg

Packard at least was manufacturing "handed" Merlins.
The XP-82 first flew April 15, 1945 powered by Packard V-1650-23 and V-1650-25.
Photo shows a P-82B.

P.A.

ElAurens
02-19-2008, 10:54 AM
And, we get to fly it in the Korea sim RRG is doing!!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
02-19-2008, 11:56 AM
WHat was the point of these 'double' planes like the Bf109Z, or the Twin Mustang?

I mean what exactly were they for?

Also, why bother with a person in each cockpit?

berg417448
02-19-2008, 11:59 AM
I don't think the 109Z had a 2nd crewman did it?

The F-82 night fighter version had a radar operator in one cockpit. I think the original reason for 2 pilots was for relief from pilot fatigue on those long over water B-29 escort missions.

Bremspropeller
02-19-2008, 12:14 PM
Nope.

AFAIK, the one guy flew the '82, the other one was the radar-operator...that is for the night fighter versions.

Patriot_Act
02-19-2008, 12:15 PM
P-82/F-82 was originaly designed to escort B-29s.
The second pilot was there for reliefe of the obvious
fatigue on a 12+ hour mission.

It turned out that the aircraft and second cockpit
was also adaptable to RADAR. The F-82 RADAR inteceptor
easily out performed the P-61 in every way.
Range and sustained speed was the best of all piston fighters.
Note that in Bob Thacker's flight non stop from Hawaii to NY NY he averaged 342mph!
Seems to me that that non stop speed record had to wait for a 747 to beat it.

P-82 was a bit of a fish out of water in that it was to late.
But it did fill in an important niche in the 40's
and was an important player in the early days over Korea.

P.A.

Bremspropeller
02-19-2008, 12:21 PM
Did the P-51s get any A-A kills in Korea?

I'm thinking of Yak-9s, IL-10s and Po-2s.

Xiolablu3
02-19-2008, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
P-82/F-82 was originaly designed to escort B-29s.
The second pilot was there for reliefe of the obvious
fatigue on a 12+ hour mission.

It turned out that the aircraft and second cockpit
was also adaptable to RADAR. The F-82 RADAR inteceptor
easily out performed the P-61 in every way.
Range and sustained speed was the best of all piston fighters.
Note that in Bob Thacker's flight non stop from Hawaii to NY NY he averaged 342mph!
Seems to me that that non stop speed record had to wait for a 747 to beat it.

P-82 was a bit of a fish out of water in that it was to late.
But it did fill in an important niche in the 40's
and was an important player in the early days over Korea.

P.A. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting, thanks.

berg417448
02-19-2008, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Did the P-51s get any A-A kills in Korea?

I'm thinking of Yak-9s, IL-10s and Po-2s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read about a few F-51 kill claims in Korea. a small number of Il-10s and Yaks IIRC.

Bremspropeller
02-19-2008, 12:44 PM
Thx.

I wonder why they didn't re-activate some P-47 units for mud-moving work.
Guess it was the cash - as always.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2008, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So this would be late/post-war period? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first Hornet flew in mid 1944, but I don't know if it initially flew with handed Merlins or not. It was intended to use them, but whether they were fitted from the outset I couldn't say.

They tended to receive quite a lot of fin filleting in service, but I presume that was down to just general stability issues, not torque/wash on take off.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2008, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The F-82 RADAR inteceptoreasily out performed the P-61 in every way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Performance yes, but it had only about 40% of the firepower of a P-61 with turret installed, or about 50% that of a P-61 with cannon alone.

It's hard to say how the two would have compared in Korea (the F-82F and G 30mph faster than the P-61C, but with less than half the firepower) as the few P-61Cs built had already been retired before the war began.

Doug_Thompson
02-19-2008, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Did the P-51s get any A-A kills in Korea?

I'm thinking of Yak-9s, IL-10s and Po-2s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Although the question was about the Mustang, I believe the very first A-A kill in the Korean War was by a twin Mustang.

=======

RE: Why twins?

Another advantage is that you could share some parts with the original single-engined model, making production cheaper for an airplane with radar and a significant bomb load and heavy armament. The savings weren't that great, but there was some. You didn't have to retool as much and interrupt regular production lines, like you would for a new model.

Sergio_101
02-19-2008, 05:21 PM
P-51D's scored a number of air to air kills at a ratio of 4:1 in their favor.

No confirmed kills against Mig-15s and one lost to a Mig-15.

One probable against a Mig-15, again, no confirmation.

P-51D's were not used as a air to air fighter.
It's kills were scored primatily in a defensive posture.

Sergio

R_Target
02-19-2008, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Thx.

I wonder why they didn't re-activate some P-47 units for mud-moving work.
Guess it was the cash - as always. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they had scrapped most of the P-38s and P-47s right after the war.

Bremspropeller
02-19-2008, 06:02 PM
A real shame.
The 47N would've been a real able ground-pounder.

Sergio_101
02-19-2008, 06:36 PM
Word I got from a creditable source (A pilot and a ground crewman I new personally)
was that the USAF and reserves were disposing of their P-47s
as fast as they could.
Officially there were P-47s in service till 1956.
But they were very few.

Both of these people flew P-51H's in the ANG out of Otiss AB Mass.
Although they were very happy not to be sent to Korea
they could not understand why the P-51H's were not sent.

Ask either one of them(if they were still alive) and they would tell
you that the H model was a far better aircraft than the D.

Everyone knew the P-47 would have been better at the ground support role.
There were just not enough airplanes left.

There were several thousands of D model P-51s left over still airworthy.

Sergio

R_Target
02-19-2008, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A real shame.
The 47N would've been a real able ground-pounder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt. What a Hoss.

http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/military_aviation/p47/p47n.jpg

ElAurens
02-19-2008, 09:42 PM
The F82 did indeed score the first air to air kill of the Korean War. The victim was a Yak 9 of some late model.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although they were very happy not to be sent to Koreathey could not understand why the P-51H's were not sent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were designed as a light fighter version of the P51 (much like the Fury was a light version of the Tempest) and so were not sufficiently stressed to carry the required ordnance for the ground attack role, which was the role that P51Ds were given.

Daiichidoku
02-20-2008, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although they were very happy not to be sent to Koreathey could not understand why the P-51H's were not sent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were designed as a light fighter version of the P51 (much like the Fury was a light version of the Tempest) and so were not sufficiently stressed to carry the required ordnance for the ground attack role, which was the role that P51Ds were given. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup
pure A-S fighter, no provisions made for wing pylons

there were also concerns about airfield conditions whre the Hs would operate, given its reduced size/weight gear wheels



id say "gee, looks like you missed the boat on this one, sgt slaughter, and on one of your fav subjects also", but then id be a richard like you, so i wont



:P

horseback
02-20-2008, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Thx.

I wonder why they didn't re-activate some P-47 units for mud-moving work.
Guess it was the cash - as always. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Despite having distributed many surviving P-47s to allies in Latin & South America, as well as Europe, there were still quite a few left on active duty in Europe and in Guard & Reserve units in the States.

In the early fifties, the Jug was still considered the USAF's most effective ground pounder, and the concern that Stalin might take advantage of the distraction in Korea to grab big chunks of a still very weak Western Europe led to the P-47 units staying in Europe and in the US to cover that possibility.

Whether it was of any consideration to the Soviets at that time has not come to my attention, but I do know that US Army and USAF personnel stationed in Europe back then (including my own father) were glad to have them available.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
02-20-2008, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
They were designed as a light fighter version of the P51 (much like the Fury was a light version of the Tempest) and so were not sufficiently stressed to carry the required ordnance for the ground attack role, which was the role that P51Ds were given. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Fury and Sea Fury were the same a/c except one was for the RAF and the other for the RN. The Sea Fury FB had an empty weight ~10 heavier than the Tempest V and a max loaded weight some 1000lb greater than the Tempest V. Both could carry 2 1000lb bombs.

P-47s with the ANG

* 101st Fighter Squadron, Massachusetts ANG

* 104th Fighter Squadron, Maryland ANG

* 105th Fighter Squadron, Tennessee ANG

* 118th Fighter Squadron, Connecticut ANG

* 121st Fighter Squadron, District of Columbia ANG

* 128th Fighter Squadron, Georgia ANG

* 131st Fighter Squadron, Massachusetts ANG

* 132nd Fighter Squadron, Maine ANG, Dow AFB.

* 133rd Fighter Squadron, New Hampshire ANG

* 134th Fighter Squadron, Vermont ANG

* 136th Fighter Squadron, New York ANG

* 141st Fighter Squadron, New Jersey ANG

* 142nd Fighter Squadron, Delaware ANG

* 143rd Fighter Squadron, Rhode Island ANG

* 146th Fighter Squadron, Pennsylvania ANG

* 149th Fighter Squadron, Virginia ANG

* 153rd Fighter Squadron, Mississippi ANG

* 156th Fighter Squadron, North Carolina ANG

* 157th Fighter Squadron, South Carolina ANG

* 158th Fighter Squadron, Georgia ANG

* 166th Fighter Squadron, Ohio ANG

* 167th Fighter Squadron, West Virginia ANG

* 198th Fighter Squadron, Puerto Rico ANG

* 199th Fighter Squadron, Hawaii ANG

Originally, the post-war ANG units east of the Mississippi were to operate P-47s and those to the west were to fly P-51s. This plan was generally adhered to, although there were exceptions.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fury and Sea Fury were the same a/c except one was for the RAF and the other for the RN. The Sea Fury FB had an empty weight ~10 heavier than the Tempest V and a max loaded weight some 1000lb greater than the Tempest V. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, once they'd finished Sea Fury development it didn't end up any lighter! Bad example perhaps.

Daiichidoku
02-20-2008, 09:43 AM
my guess is, aside from not wanting the $$$ for upkeep, and easy fulfillment of lend-lease and other agreements for mil. eq, there may have been peacetime arms reductions to certain levels, agreed to by "big three" at some time, ensuring only the latest greatest, or otherwise irreplacable eq would be spared the horrors of peace

anyone know anyhting pertaining to this?

Patriot_Act
02-20-2008, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although they were very happy not to be sent to Koreathey could not understand why the P-51H's were not sent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were designed as a light fighter version of the P51 (much like the Fury was a light version of the Tempest) and so were not sufficiently stressed to carry the required ordnance for the ground attack role, which was the role that P51Ds were given. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup
pure A-S fighter, no provisions made for wing pylons

there were also concerns about airfield conditions whre the Hs would operate, given its reduced size/weight gear wheels



id say "gee, looks like you missed the boat on this one, sgt slaughter, and on one of your fav subjects also", but then id be a richard like you, so i wont



:P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't be so smug Daiichidoku. You seem to shoot your mouth off without doing any
research, and as a result you got "Foot in mouth disease" real bad.
Most P-51H were equipped with external racks.

IMO The primary reason for not being deployed in Korea was the small
main landing gear wheels.
Major parts interchangability with the P-51D was not real good and that would have caused issues.

Note the bomb racks in the attached picture.

http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/korean/p51hphoto.jpg

Until their retirement in 1957 P-51H was used as a fighter bomber by the US ANG.

May I suggest a google or Yahoo search before you insert your foot in your mouth next time?

Oh, before you insert your foot in your mouth again, let me point out why I am 100% certain this is a H model.
Note the longer airframe, taller tail, non angled radiator inlet, and the pinched carb air intake.
Also note the straight leading edge, small landing gear wheels and, not so obvious, the higher canopy placement.

Before you call it a prototype, note the ANG insignia on the fuselage and note the fact that there was
never a prototype P-51H. Also the first P-51H-5-NA had the short D model vertical fin.

Not many H models survive partly because they were worked to death in the ANG.
This survivor is in the markings of a MASS ANG P-51H.
Note the mythical bomb racks.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/images/H44-64265.jpg

P.A.

Patriot_Act
02-20-2008, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
my guess is, aside from not wanting the $$$ for upkeep, and easy fulfillment of lend-lease and other agreements for mil. eq, there may have been peacetime arms reductions to certain levels, agreed to by "big three" at some time, ensuring only the latest greatest, or otherwise irreplacable eq would be spared the horrors of peace

anyone know anyhting pertaining to this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin never agreed to any reductions.
Again, google it.
Reductions were driven by the posession of the Atomic bomb
and the lack of need for such a massive military.

Lend lease agreements were met by scrapping the machines in most cases
but not so much in the soviet union.
They wrote more of it off as lost in action than there really was and kept it.
Notably there were Soviet P-63s seen flying in Korea....

Complicated issue and there is no point in researching a massive post no one will read.

Foot in mouth disease seems incurable with this one.....


P.A.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 12:37 PM
A friend of mine was in the Air Training Corps in the UK in the 1980s, and their target rifles were US-made No. 4 Mk. 1*. Probably due to a jobsworth somewhere they had to send them back as the lease period for Lend Lease had come to an end. I've never heard of anything else actually being sent back under Lend Lease (it's possible it might have been, though), so this stands out as an odd one.

I am not sure how much Lend Lease aircraft the UK had left at the end of WW2 or what was done with it. I do know that the UK the UK purchased some ex-WW2 equipment from the USA post war to cover procurement gaps, notably the B-29 (as the Washington, pending V bombers) and the Avenger for a couple of years 53-55 (pending the Fairey Gannet coming into service).

willyvic
02-20-2008, 12:39 PM
Let up on the PA...PA.


WV

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 12:56 PM
Interesting performance figures on the P-51H on 90" Hg without racks. In tests up to 490mph and even 450mph with bombs (2x500lbs). Even at 'only' 70" Hg it manages 425 with bombs.

I was under the impression that the wings of the -H were only stressed for a single 500lb bomb each, rather than 1000lbs per wing of the P-51D, but maybe not

Sergio_101
02-20-2008, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
Foot in mouth disease seems incurable with this one.....P.A. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO!

Again from some frormer P-51H people.
They were ANG out of Otiss AB Mass.
They had P-47s when they first served at Otiss AB in 1948.
They quickly disappeared. They were P-47D models.
Most were scrapped in place.
What remained were P-51H and P-51Ds.
They had one short tail P-51H with no bomb racks. It was the unit hot rod.
I heard many stories about making over 400mph over Buzzards bay so low that they had to
dodge large boats and sailboats masts.
I could re-tell many storis here, but that is not the point of this post.

Point is that the USAF was not interested in maintaining P-47s in the late 1940s.
As soon as major issues showed themselves the aircraft were flown off for disposal
or scrapped in place.

As the mechanic said "Maintaining a P-51H was as easy as working on your car".
He is the source of a favorite knick name for the P-47.
He referred to it as the "Pig-47".

Sergio

Badsight-
02-20-2008, 09:13 PM
only one bomb rack


http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/p51ha.jpg (http://imgboot.com/)

Badsight-
02-20-2008, 09:20 PM
from this :

http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/na73xveryfirstmustangfly.jpg (http://imgboot.com/)


to this :
.


http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/p51h2_1.jpg (http://imgboot.com/)

Patriot_Act
02-22-2008, 03:36 AM
Badsight, you got any photos of a short tailed P-51H?
I got one here but it's in a book, not on the web.
And it does NOT have bomb racks ;-)

P.A.

Aaron_GT
02-22-2008, 08:57 AM
The -D still has the edge in looks. It has to be one of if not the top planes in the WW2 beauty parade.

Doug_Thompson
02-24-2008, 02:02 PM
A minor note.

A two-stage mechanical supercharger was apparently successfully adapted to an Allison engine for the experimental P-40Q.

Patriot_Act
02-24-2008, 06:11 PM
The three P-40Q aircraft were powered by the Allison V-1710-121
engine rated at 1425 hp dry.
It made more power with water injection and all three
P-40Q test aircraft had water ADI.

The Allison V-1710-121 was a two stage supercharged engine
with a hydraulc drive for the high blower stage.
It produced a smooth step free boost pressure
from sea level to it's critical altitude (about 22,000' in this case).

The P-40Q was an enigma, there was really no reason for it.

P.A.