P-38 Lightning

[rickshaw]

Nice but wouldn't it need bigger radiators?

It probably does have deeper radiators but line drawings do not show depth and there are four radiators anyway.

Gondor

They were IIRC, for the turbosuperchargers not engine cooling.  Wouldn't the Griffin require larger radiators than the Allisons?

[Gondor]

Fin area is usually increased for lateral control anyway and as its simply an engine change I would not envisage there being much of a need to adjust the size.

Gondor

[Tophe]

Fin area is usually increased for lateral control anyway and as its simply an engine change I would not envisage there being much of a need to adjust the size.
Gondor

Well, remember the Mustang family: the P-51H with more powerful engine required a bigger fin, then some racing Mustangs with Griffon even bigger engines required even bigger fins (I thought this might be due to increased torque, but when that happens on contrarotative propeller types, it should be something else). Anyway, we are dreamers not engineers so we may imagine changes that would hurt realists (JMNs), no?

[Gondor]

Nice but wouldn't it need bigger radiators?

It probably does have deeper radiators but line drawings do not show depth and there are four radiators anyway.

Gondor

They were IIRC, for the turbosuperchargers not engine cooling.  Wouldn't the Griffin require larger radiators than the Allisons?

Thinking about it again and trying to save GTX from having to redraw the aircraft, the intake on the Griffin engine is for the Carburettors, where rickshaw correctly states that the Allison engine has a chine radiator, perhaps the radiators were placed in the leading edge of the inner wing between the cockpit and the engines/booms just like in the Mosquito?

Gondor

[kitnut617]

The air intake under the spinner was for the supercharger intercooler and air to the carb, so the P-38 radiator pods would serve just as well as regular radiators for the engine and oil coolers.  All I would do is remover the turbocharger sticking out the top of the booms.

Greg, it's a really good design   Slightly bigger fins would be better, like the Chain Lighning perhaps --

[PR19_Kit]

 A Griffon engined P-38 wouldn't need turbo-chargers.

The Griffon has it's own socking great two stage mechanical supercharger mounted right behind it. In any case the exhausts on the Griffon engined version come out of the nacelles in the 'normal' place so the turbo-chargers wouldn't have anything to drive them.....

[GTX]

Ok chaps, that got more responses than I expected - re the issues raised, let's just say that was a prototype conversion (yes, that works ).  Here are a couple of other developments:




Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

Looking much nicer.  I'd also suggest getting rid of the boom radiators and having either inner leading edge ones (not obvious with a side profile though) or a chin radiator (much easier for conversion as you don't have to change the wing structure nor have pipes/hoses all over the place).

How about a Sabre engined one as well?   

[Mossie]

Would you need contra-props on a twin?  Just have the engines counter-rotating.  Does have factor though!

[PR19_Kit]

Either of the re-hashed versions look really good. The turbo'd version causes a few scrached heads as you're so used to that engine cowling shape WITH exhaust stubs, and there they are without any!

Re handed engines, R-R did that for the 'slim-line' Merlins fitted to the Hornet, so using the same scheme for Griffons would have been within their capabilities I'm sure. But contras look SO cool though. 

[Did I just say 'cool'? Been spending too much time teaching my grandson to make models, and he uses the word every 10 seconds...]

[kitnut617]

According to the Air-Britain book 'The Hornet File', there was a requirement included in the specs for the aircraft to have contra-props ( not counter rotating).  This was eventually dropped as the counter rotating set-up worked.  Although from what I gather from reading the book (just a couple of weeks ago), single engine flying wasn't very pleasant and the history notes of all the squadrons that used the Hornet is littered with reports of pilots being killed while the aircraft was trying to get back on one engine.  The RN even told it's pilots not to attempt a carrier landing with only one engine but to head for land if they had enough fuel.  If they didn't have enough, they were to bail out or try a belly-landing near the ship.

[Tophe]

Would you need contra-props on a twin?  Just have the engines counter-rotating.  Does have factor though!

Remember the Hughes XR-11... (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke5kjyY1TTQ/SuCE8cZeF4I/AAAAAAAAAWw/VN5xFNCegx0/s320/xr4.jpg) well, this is not a "need" but than can be tried

[PR19_Kit]

And now from the sublime to the silly ... a single-engined Lightning relative.

That's just the sort of thing that Tophe would come up with! 

Mind you, he'd only have one wing on one side and the tailplane on the opposite side!

[Tophe]

And now from the sublime to the silly ... a single-engined Lightning relative.

I disagree : this single-engined P-38 is sublime also
Kit is right, I may create an asymmetric joke from it. Probably not as model but as drawing. Thanks for the inspiration!

[Tophe]

Before I draw the single-engined Lightning*, so nice, I have included at the end of my what-if Lightning web-site (http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit) the twin-Griffon and single-Griffon derivatives... Thanks again GTX & Apophenia...

* : EDIT (done also, thanks again Apophenia)