Modified P-38

[sedonakevin]

Hello All,
  This is my first post here after browsing the site for a while and marvelling at some the ideas created.  I've long toyed with the idea of building a 1/48 model of a carrier capable P-38 Lightning.  The folding wings are no problem, my wonder is where to put the arrester hook.  My primary thought is along the centerline of the cockpit tub (as if it were attached to the main wing spar).  One of my buddies in the local model club (IPMS Prescott AZ) suggested a hydraulically operated triangular contraption attached to both tail booms behind the main landing gear (again attached to the main wing spar).

Any ideas, preferences, suggestions ??

Best wishes,
Kevin

Dept. of History
Dept. of Quaternary Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff AZ

[wagnersm]

I would think that an arrester hook attached to the cockpit tub would be simpler and create less drag than the triangular 'contraption' that you described. 

Also, will your aircraft fly off of any carriers with catapults?  Determination of the location of the one or more catapult hooks may be interesting.

Steve

[Captain Canada]

I'd say off the cockpit tub as well. A hydraulically actuated triangular contraption  ( say that five times fast  ) sounds complicated, and would surely incur weight/ cg / and aerodynamic problems ?

[rickshaw]

Twin stinger hooks, one at the extreme end of each tail boom! 

I'd suggest looking at how the Sea Vampire and Sea Venom did their tail  hooks if you want a real life example of a twin boomer with a tail hook. 

[PR19_Kit]

Sea Venom's had a bit of a wider base at the wing roots for their hooks because of the engine exhaust in the middle, but there's no reason why a similar fairing shouldn't work on a P-38.

I'd HATE to think what would happen if only one of the stinger tail hooks got a wire and the other didn't! if I was the DLO I'd be wearing a Mae West the entire time just in case only the port hook caught. 

[wuzak]

Maybe a telescoping tail hook. The support telescopes from the crew nacelle and then the hook hinges down from there.

As for catapult launch, I woul dthink that a suitable arrangement could be made on the P-38's nose wheel.

For the Navy P-38 are you going to ditch the turbos? Turbos were mainly an Army thing.

[NARSES2]

Firstly wellcome aboard, secondly I'd go for the tailhook mounted on/in the rear of the boom as well, although it would need to be fairly long I would have thought ?

[rickshaw]

Sea Venom's had a bit of a wider base at the wing roots for their hooks because of the engine exhaust in the middle, but there's no reason why a similar fairing shouldn't work on a P-38.

I thought that as well.  I'd suggest an extension to the centre pod, into which the hook retracts.

I'd HATE to think what would happen if only one of the stinger tail hooks got a wire and the other didn't! if I was the DLO I'd be wearing a Mae West the entire time just in case only the port hook caught. 

Let just say, it would lend a certain air of excitement to landing on operations, would it not.  Be great source for opportunities to speculate to accumulate amongst the crew who were looking on... 

[famvburg]

IIRC, the couple of real proposed naval variants had the hook in the center pod.

[Dizzyfugu]

Sea Venom's had a bit of a wider base at the wing roots for their hooks because of the engine exhaust in the middle, but there's no reason why a similar fairing shouldn't work on a P-38.

I thought that as well.  I'd suggest an extension to the centre pod, into which the hook retracts.

That would be my idea, too. I'd use a V- or Y-shaped hook that might be attached to the wings' main spar, and lengthen the pod tail beyond the training edge in order to accomodate the hook. I'd leave the booms alone, I cannot see any sound solution that would not end in asymmetry and potential landing desaster. The long pod might look goofy, but at least it's an original feature for a navalized P-38.

[PR19_Kit]

For the Navy P-38 are you going to ditch the turbos? Turbos were mainly an Army thing.

The turbo-less P-38 was a dog. The RAF had half a dozen and they were turbo-less, probably because the War Ministry didn't understand turbo-chargers at the time. They were so bad that they were rejected as 'not suitable for purpose'.

[wuzak]

For the Navy P-38 are you going to ditch the turbos? Turbos were mainly an Army thing.

The turbo-less P-38 was a dog. The RAF had half a dozen and they were turbo-less, probably because the War Ministry didn't understand turbo-chargers at the time. They were so bad that they were rejected as 'not suitable for purpose'.

The answer there is improved Allisons - with two stage superchargers, or at least 2 speed superchargers.

[PR19_Kit]

The answer there is improved Allisons - with two stage superchargers, or at least 2 speed superchargers.

Actually the answer was a Spitfire, or a Mosquito....... 

[kitnut617]

The turbo-less P-38 was a dog. The RAF had half a dozen and they were turbo-less, probably because the War Ministry didn't understand turbo-chargers at the time. They were so bad that they were rejected as 'not suitable for purpose'.

I've read that the turbos were on the US Governments restricted list (read US only) so any aircraft that had them, didn't when they got to the UK.

[NARSES2]

The turbo-less P-38 was a dog. The RAF had half a dozen and they were turbo-less, probably because the War Ministry didn't understand turbo-chargers at the time. They were so bad that they were rejected as 'not suitable for purpose'.

I've read that the turbos were on the US Governments restricted list (read US only) so any aircraft that had them, didn't when they got to the UK.

That fits my memory as well