Raf P-38s

Archibald · March 19, 2007, 02:22:38 AM

I'm thinking... whatif the RAF asked Lockheed to build a Packard-Merlin powered
P-38 in 1942 ? After all both P-40 and P-51 started their cariers with Allison engines, and ended with the Packard Merlin.

What about a Griffon-powered Lightning with contraprops?

Maverick · March 19, 2007, 02:34:44 AM

Even if they'd been allowed the superchargers as fitted they still would have been worth the effort. I just can't understand why Lockheed, USAAF or RAF decided to do away with 'em. Perhaps one of our 'American Cousins' might know?

Regards,

Mav

Geoff · March 19, 2007, 05:06:44 AM

..... and of coures if they had taken on a batch of the early models they might have shipped them to Russia like the P-39s?

??

Archibald · March 19, 2007, 07:10:28 AM

Where can I find a decent 3-view (no colors) of a Spitfire mk.14 / 19 ?
I really want to "graft" two griffons on a Lightning...

Whatif Packard had licence-builded the Griffon engine (after the supercharged Merlin) ?

P-38 with P-51H engines (Packard Merlin rated at 2200 hp) ?

famvburg · March 19, 2007, 09:59:38 AM

QuoteWhere can I find a decent 3-view (no colors) of a Spitfire mk.14 / 19 ?
I really want to "graft" two griffons on a Lightning...

Whatif Packard had licence-builded the Griffon engine (after the supercharged Merlin) ?

P-38 with P-51H engines (Packard Merlin rated at 2200 hp) ?

Lockheed built a P-38 with Merlins, I think. XP-49? As for upgrades, just upgrade the Allisons. ISTR the ones used in the P-82 were rated pretty hight.

Maverick · March 19, 2007, 01:28:09 PM

Hey Archie,

check out http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html. The spit pics are big downloads but I'm sure there'll be a Griffon bird in there

Regards

Mav

GTX · March 19, 2007, 01:31:07 PM

John,

Damn it - you beat me to it!

Yes there are a number of Griffon Spit drawings there - though I believe they all come under the Spitfire Mk.22(24) heading.

Regards,

Greg

Martin H · March 19, 2007, 01:58:05 PM

the only reason the French/RAF P 38 order didnt have the super chargers was because the said items were still on the American secret list and not open for export.

Maverick · March 19, 2007, 04:44:57 PM

That sounds like a familiar comment, good to see things haven't changed for 60+ years.

jcf · March 19, 2007, 11:44:10 PM

Quotethe only reason the French/RAF P 38 order didnt have the super chargers was because the said items were still on the American secret list and not open for export.

Nope, had nothing to do with it. They ordered aircraft equipped with the same engines as used on the Hawk 81.

Archibald posted a good synopsis from Joe Baugher in the P-63 thread.
P-63 thread

There was very little secret about the US turbo-superchargers by 1939-40, especially seeing how their development since 1919 had been carried out pretty much in the open. The critical information on design and metallurgy was proprietary to GE and as such was not in the public domain, but the units themselves were not secret.

Jon

elmayerle · March 20, 2007, 12:42:09 AM

Quote
QuoteWhere can I find a decent 3-view (no colors) of a Spitfire mk.14 / 19 ?
I really want to "graft" two griffons on a Lightning...

Whatif Packard had licence-builded the Griffon engine (after the supercharged Merlin) ?

P-38 with P-51H engines (Packard Merlin rated at 2200 hp) ?

Lockheed built a P-38 with Merlins, I think. XP-49? As for upgrades, just upgrade the Allisons. ISTR the ones used in the P-82 were rated pretty hight.

Actually, Lockheed looked at Merlin-powered P-38s more than once, but never sold the USAAF on it. The really hot P-38 was the P-38K with higher-output Allisons and higher activity Hamilton Standard props. Unfortunately, this would've required too much redesign and production line interruption. Personally, I'd like to combine this with Kelly Johnson's other ideas for an "ultimate P-38".

GTX · March 20, 2007, 12:53:32 PM

Hi folks,

To introduce another Whiff element to this discussion, what if the 75mm cannon option was developed for the P-38? Perrfect for anti-shipping and anti-tank role. See below for real-world proposal. Weapons included a 75mm cannon + two 12.7mm MGs. Note that the central pod is re-profiled to accomodate the cannon. The second and third pics show the usual P-38 pod shape against the re-profiled pod.

Regards,

Greg

upnorth · March 20, 2007, 01:05:25 PM

Good God! I would not want to be sitting directly over that if it jammed or otherwise malfunctioned.

ysi_maniac · March 20, 2007, 01:10:10 PM

Hi Greg:
I like this P-38

elmayerle · March 20, 2007, 11:37:33 PM

This article gives a good review of Lockheed's look at Merlin-powered P-38s and consideration of other claims of such as well as an excellent overview of the P-38K.

I still want to take the basic P-38K concept and add the rest of Kelly's "ultimate P-38" - longer center pod along the lines of the "Lightning Swordfish" one, wing leading edge radiators and oil coolers along the lines of what the Mosquito used, and a bubble canopy. The only other change I might make is to go with a "high activity" four-bladed prop that would allow a reduction in prop diameter without a loss of performance (consider the MU-2L and MU-2N, essentially the same engines and same performance, but the "L" had three-bladed props and the "N" had four-bladed props with a smaller prop diamater to reduce noise in the fuselage).