The F7F were designed to operate off the new Midway class carriers. No one expected the war to end in 1945. Golden gate by 48 was the saying during the Pacific war.
A big part of the problems with the P38 and likely also the P49 was its COST. Greg's Airplanes goes into this pretty extensively covering most of the key aircraft of WW II and usually mentioning the cost per unit (If I remember right P38 was over twice the cost of other key fighters like P47 and definitely much more than P51 which was the best deal of all). The P38 was popular with the command, who jockeyed to obtain as many of this airplane as they could get (many wound up in the Pacific Theater where their range was a great plus and they did not need to travel at over 20k ft altitude). Also, the P38 had complaints around the temperature in the center nacelle with the pilot and controls. Apparently the heating was not ideal, and thus the P38 had a far better time down in the Pacific where it did not have to act as bomber escort at high altitude. P38 was deemed the best gun platform as far as easy sighting of target of all these fighters due to the centerline placement of the weapons.
And the P-38 had a longer range 20mm cannon that fired in addition to the 4 -.50 cal machine guns. Given that it did not have the convergence issue - you had for the time what was an insane amount of firepower. The altitude issue with the 38 was due to early development teething problems on earlier models due to carb icing, intercooler, and turbo issues with freezing, not to mention the cockpit heating issue. And the lower temperatures in the EU theatre caused more issues with the compressibility in a dive problem, again, not "resolved" until at the least the J versions. One of the biggest issues was because it was the world's first 400mph fighter and designed before some of the later NACA drag studies, it didn't benefit fully from those techniques like our later fighters did. In addition to drag issues with all the little scoops, gun port drag, etc even though the later Allison's were making well over 1600HP with 2000HP in sight - they never installed the four blade paddle props that would allow it to make use of all the extra HP. Those two issues limited the top speed and given the complexity, cost, and supply chain issues with a twin engine design - it was used most effectively in the Pacific theatre where its limitations didn't impact its effectiveness against the Japanese.
@@Mike-eq4ky Convergence isn't the issue with mixed guns, it's trajectory, at the 400 yard convergence they're going to hit at pretty much the same place, but those underpowered cannons are going to start dropping like bricks after that, and yes they're underpowered as far as trajectory goes, look at a modern US 20×120mm, they have the proportions of a AK47 7.62×39mm cartridge, if you know anything about rifle cartridges you know they're anemic and underpowered compared to .30/06 Springfield (US .30 cal), and those WW2 20mm's weren't even necked down cartridges, they were pretty much straight walled, almost like a pistol cartridge, all those WW2 aircraft cannons were like that and their projectiles had the trajectory of a rainbow, they didn't need serious ballistics as they were explosive projectiles, with the .50 cal it was it's ballistics, its punching power, that'd push it through many layers of materials or thick materials that did damage, that and you had a whole bunch of them between their firing rate and the increased number of guns over aircraft with 20mm's, that made the .50's like buzz saws when they hit aircraft, alot of these guys will claim "They were only good in the Pacific against the lightly built Japanese planes, against the German fighters they were ineffective", clearly they've never seen the number of German aircraft shot down by US fighters or the gun camera footage showing parts, sometimes wings, flying off of them when hit by a burst. P38 pilots could switch guns on and off, even individual .50's, they could fire just two if they wanted, all four or all four and their cannon, or just the cannon, it all depended on the situation, but because of the trajectory difference they'd never have fired their .50's and the cannon all at once at a target that was at long range, the cannon shells would have been dropping well below the .50's at any kind of serious range and would just be wasted.
@@Mike-eq4ky A good synopsis of the info around this amazing aircraft. This info is also what Greg from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles (on You Tube; a great channel which uses original NACA docs, as well as all the original manuals and military training materials he can find to go over quite a lot of depth info on these amazing machines) mentions - he talks about the NACA drag study and the exterior of the earlier P38 models. Greg also covers Axis aircraft.
A thing you need to understand is that the USA wanted to go over to 20mm cannons even before they entered WW2. They bought the blueprints for 20mm Hispano cannons, manufactured a lot of them and a buttload of ammo. Having done that, they tested them. Spoiler alert: You test the prototypes, not the production variant. Turns out the chamber was too long and the guns were horribly unreliable. Solutions: a) Re-manufacture the chamber or shim it. Or b) Muck about with other parts and hope for the best. The USA went for b) and American fighters used 50-cal 'not enough gun' into the Korean war.
It was also found that the .50s were broadly sufficient in most cases.. I mean, the Japanese and Brits were running like .30 call machine guns for a long time
@@chickenfishhybrid44 both Japan and the UK moved over to primarily 20mm and higher by 1940-41. 50s were just about competitive, but the optimal caliber tests after WW2 judged them to be 1/4 as effective per round, 1/3 per gun. This is less efficient given weight of guns and ammunition. The USA repeatedly tried to make 20mm guns work in its aircraft in WW2, underlining that 50s were lagging. Thankfully, they were available and equal best in class, else the USA would have had serious issues.
The Brits advised on 2 vital modifications to the 20mm Hispano to adopt: the shortened chamber (2mm) and the triple wire return spring that the Americans opted not to incorporate. This resulted in frequent 'lightly struck cap' stoppages. We tried to help.........!
Reminds me of the DH Hornet, which had two 100-series Merlins that made 2000 HP each. Eric Brown said it was way overpowered (it could do aerobatics with one prop feathered), but for a design that went into production in 1945, it was relatively successful, with almost 400 produced.
Came to say this- I am not here to give him a hard time about it though. When people know the word but don’t pronounce it correctly, it’s because they read it. More people should read!
@@Metalwolf765I hear you, BUT the c comes before an an and in every language I can think of, that means the c is hard. It doesn’t have a cedilla under it, so it’s hard.
The bigger error is the use of “mil” to mean millimeter when referring to the cannon size. A mil is one thousandth of an inch, NOT a millimeter. A 30 mil cannon is really puny when you consider that 40 mil is a millimeter!
I think he is reading from official reports for most of that. I could be wrong, but I kept thinking of additional down the line upgrades that would be required like the heat shielding and it seemed like it was pretty thorough, and since he mentioned them upgrading the heat shielding, I got the sense it wasn't him guessing.
@builder396 with something for carriers, single-engined performance is more the issue, though. Fairey handled it differently with various WW2 designs by having two engines in the fuselage, culminating with the Gannet with the Double Mamba. Although a single engine, the halves could be turned off individually which helped loiter. In all cases, no asymmetric thrust, but at the expense of complexity.
Wow, I never realized the technology back then had already reached these heights. Your explanations are super clear-thanks for sharing! I’m a huge fan of unusual experimental aircraft myself...
0:14 starting a documentary with one of the best modern waifu really sets the mood here. Then again, Power was known to be anaemic when she used too much blood for her attacks and honestly with the fate of the “Lightning but bigger” XP-58 a weapons platform being supersized most often results in a more lethargic performance. Also, while we’re on the topic of power, the turbocharged Allisons are more than adequate for the mission profiles of the P-38. No amount of power can really fix the compressibility issues NACA and Lockheed had to deal with. The late model P-38s go beyond 410mph while still maintaining reasonable fuel economy, which coupled with Lindbergh’s fuel trim tricks can really push their limits. Merry Christmas, Mr. IHYLS!
They had fixes for the P38's compressability issues, its drag issues and just about any other issue people claim made it a bad fighter, but the USAAF rejected them because they didn't want production interrupted, the latest models were doing the job and their priority was more of them instead of less improved variants. The big issue with power in the early models was the leading edge wing mounted innercoolers for the superchargers, the problem was to make more power means more boost, more boost means bigger innercoolers, with that design bigger innercoolers meant redesigning the wings, redesigning the wings meant a serious drop in production, every time Allison wanted to put another 200 HP on the engine Lockheed would have to redesign the wings, the two didn't see eye to eye on how to handle the problem needless to say. After they got the innercoolers out of the wings power increases were much easier to implement.
@@dukecraig2402 Lockheed had the foresight NOT to redesign the wings, which would’ve killed its legendary handling. For a twin boom design the P-38 was quite an agile bird until the aforementioned compressibility issues arise, which was solved easily through better pilot training and change of combat tactics. That being said, WWII intercooler design isn’t exactly my forte (and so does for many nations at that time) but as I recall Japan solved the power choke issues by fitting direct injection on their turbocharged radials (particularly the Homare engines). Late war Japanese radials gained some really impressive power per cubic inches ratio, which was only hampered with the worsened build quality.
@@Nafeels Training pilots to avoid compressibility didn't cure the lower speed it happened at, it gave the P38 a very low critical mach number and meant they couldn't dive away from an enemy, trying that in them got alot of P38 pilots killed, as I said Lockheed had a solution to compressibility but it was such a redesign it would have cut production drastically, luckily in the Pacific where it was mostly used in the fighter role the Zero couldn't dive for squat either so fixing the P38's compressibility problem just wasn't a priority. It wasn't hardly agile either, it had a very slow roll rate that wasn't cured until the last variant that had hydraulic boosted ailerons. Innercoolers are pretty simple, they're basically just like radiators, need more cooling, you need a bigger unit, higher supercharger boost pressure means you're heating the air more because you're compressing it more, to counter it you need a bigger innercooler to counter the heat, if you can't then the reduction in ignition timing and other things you have to do in order to keep from getting engine knock from your intake air being heated counters the added power from increased boost, so ultimately you're not making anymore power if you can't cool the higher boosted charge, the original design of the P38 had the innercoolers in the leading edges of the wings therefore you couldn't put bigger innercoolers in it without redesigning the wings, something that would have choked production every time Allison could put another 200 HP on the engines because higher octane fuels allowed higher boost levels. When the P38 was originally developed US aviation fuel had around 90 or so octane, by the end of the war they had it up around 130, everytime it was increased allowed more boost for the engines, but once again without being able to cool the higher boosted intake air with bigger innercoolers you couldn't take advantage of the higher octane levels.
There was a version of Yak-9 that had a 45 mm cannon in the prop hub, I think that was the largest (I'm aware of) cannon carried by a single engine fighter as equipped from the manufacturer.
A standard P-38 is perfectly capable of handling 2,500+HP engines without any airframe mods, air racers figured out how to boost late/post war allisons way up there and the P-38 had no issues flying with all of that extra power. The engines didn't last long, obviously, but the airframes were fine all the same.
But you need big four-blade paddle props once you get beyond about 1400HP to make use of all the extra HP. That's a big part of what limited top speed in the war, that they never made the change from the 3 blade prop during the war. But it was a solid airframe for sure.
more power from the same engine isn't the same as adding bigger engines and fuel tanks. the added weight effects everything from range to G forces even at the same speeds.
@@Mike-eq4ky One of the reasons they never got far in Reno was because they'd reach critical mach a lot sooner than their contemporaries. In a way, post war air racing answered a lot of WWII's what-if questions...in this case, if the P-38 was upgraded to the teeth for max speed during the war, it would've underperformed and the airframe wouldn't have made good use of that power. Perhaps it would've made a difference in the war for a short time with the element of surprise until the enemy figured out the P-38 was now capable of a higher top speed and climb rate than they expected, but they'd adjust and the advantage would be minimal overall.
@@janderson4423 The additional weight is irrelevant to the matter of the airframe not being able to handle the extra power. I'm not arguing that it wasn't able to handle the additional weight of larger engines and fuel tanks airframe wise, that wasn't even what I was talking about. The video made a big point of explaining that the additional POWER, not weight, was the issue. Things like P-factor and the verticals not being big enough for the same power that late war P-38's were functioning just fine with. It's contradictory. He didn't have to mention any of the power considerations. The weight and packaging of the larger engines were the only noteworthy things hampering this project, as P-38's have proven they're more than capable of handling the additional power that the XP-49 was intended to use. The additional fuel is irrelevant as well, since it doesn't much matter what engine you're using, the fuel requirement will be be pretty close to the same if you're utilizing the same power settings. In other words, if it had the Continentals and used 1400HP during an intercept, it's going to burn roughly the same fuel as the Allisons running at 1400HP doing the same thing. Fuel wasn't an issue with late war P-38's, so they were making a big fuss over nothing, ultimately they ended up using the same fuel tanks that the P-38's were being upgraded with anyway. Retrospectively the only thing standing in their way was the weight and packaging of the engines, and that was an issue they already dealt with after making the prototype. Had the Continental been widely available and reliable, a handful of mechanics on an island in the Pacific probably could've retrofitted a P-38 with them in a similar way to how the Brits strapped a Merlin to the P-51, it's really not that difficult. The problem that killed the XP-49 was the same that killed most other aircraft that could've been fantastic during the war...their new experimental engines always ended up being trash. Lockheed wasn't faced with the issue of overpowering the P-38, they were faced with using an experimental engine that failed.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper The XP-49 handled the power with the same vertical stabilizers as the P-38s, he just said they noted they *should* be larger. Who is to say the P-38 could not benefit from the same change? Also, you need to consider the possibility that when he said, "frame" it may not have specifically been in reference to the actual space frame of the P-38 and XP-49, but rather the design as a whole. Sure, the airframe might "handle" the power in terms of sheer strength, just like a first gen VW Golf can handle 1200hp out of a twin turbo big block. That, however, differs greatly from a plane "handling" the power, and having desirable flight characteristics possibly with a full combat load of fuel, bombs, armament, ammunition, and armor. And, with that additional load and increased speed from the additional power, how would the frame cope with the forces applied in maneuvers? There's way too many factors at play to be criticizing that statement, especially when aircraft like the F4F and P-40 benefited so well from being overbuilt.
Yes. It’s annoying and there’s no good reason to dim the image. I hate it when directors of TV shows or movies try to use excessive quantities of low light situation to show a somber, dangerous, or other sort of dramatic mood for the work, because they feel it makes them cleverly artistic. Instead, it makes it difficult to discern the environment or the characters on screen. An example of this would be the 2024 crime drama Cross, starring Aldis Hodge. It appears to have an interesting, very suspenseful plot, and Hodge is an excellent actor, but I got so tired of squinting at the screen trying to figure out which characters were being displayed, and where they were that I gave up watching it.
Huh. I’ve been a huge fan of the P-38 since I was a kid but I’d never heard of the XP-49 before this video. Thank you for introducing me to the Lightning’s red headed stepchild.
09:06 if anyone is wondering, I think the narrator of Rock and Roll racing said that 'in another time zone' when a racer got exploded or got in last in the race...something like that
Hi. Thanks heaps. Narrator has a stratospheric sense of humour. Uses the word "dormant", followed by a brief shot of a baby critter snoozing. We need more of this. Some planes were "lame ducks", and others flew like "brick sh---houses". It shouldn't be too difficult to find a photogenic lame duck somewhere or drop a dunny from a crane to get an air-to-air shot of aeronautical research in action. I reckon you'd get 96 million views, not 96 thousand. Chocks away, and Cheers, P.R.
Man… It that time frame? They were looking at everything and Anything that could stomp a mudhole in Everybody. I can’t hate them for it…I would too…if I was in an active war with multiple major powers. Crazy stuff mate! Great vid! Thanks! 😎👍
Someone in the middle east aquired Focke Wulf 190s with Junker bomber engines (...or Jumo 213) after WW2. They had problems with flipping the plane while still being on the ground.
More horsepower does not negate the limitations of the airframe max speed. Thus the implementation of the diving flaps on the underside of the wings, that were necessary for the P-38 to retain control in a steep dive.
The Yak-9-57 was a one-off conversion of a Yak-9UT armed with a 57 mm cannon.[20] The large caliber cannon did not protrude from the spinner cone like the Yak-9-37/45 models.
My home town Santa Maria Ca airport was originally built as a”Hancock field” to train bomber pilots. The landing strip was originally “marson mat” on the loose sandy terrain in the area, and could not support the weight of the bombers. They transitioned to training P38 fighters. There were a few that went down, one was south east of Twitchel reservoir and has not been recovered.
I’ll approach the cannon issue from an Infantry point of view. Many post-war studies (WW2 & Korea) of human behavior attempted to understand why it was human nature to hold fire until the enemy was close enough for a definite kill rather than take advantage of a gun’s max effective range at distance. Prime example is why have a full power 30-06 battle rifle fully capable of killing at 1000yds when troops held fire until the enemy was only 250 yds away (thus the adoption of the smaller, lighter 5.56). That same behavior was recognized by the Germans, so their solution was the MG42. Extremely fast rate of fire to “shotgun” the target with a burst. That same concept lent longevity to using 6 or 8 .50 cals on aircraft. More rounds on target as quick as possible to shred said target. Fighter pilots tended to follow this same quirk of human behavior to get close before firing, and once they did, knowing that multiple fast-firing guns would shred the opponent. Once again, more rounds on target per burst. Of course the 20mm was deadlier per round, but fewer cannon at a slower rate of fire with less magazine capacity does play upon one’s 1940’s brain. So as the designers were trying to unfock what they did to the Hispano, there was comfort in knowing that pilots were very content with the massive rate of fire from 6/8 .50’s. True happiness came with the M61 Vulcan at 6,000 or 4,000 rpm, depending on hydraulic or electric. Now would a Crusader driver of 1958 give up his four individual 20mm cannon for 8 .50’s, I would think not. But by this time the 20’s had reliability and rate of fire. Just a point of view from someone who has been in overseas engagements and lived through what volume of fire can do for you.
Actually a study done during the war showed that not only fighter pilots but also bomber gunners started firing when their targets were further away than what would have given the best results, in most cases it was because they weren't judging the distance correctly, if they were trained to start firing once they'd closed to 400 yards they were usually starting to fire at 600 yards instead, in the case of deflection shooting because of that they were firing well behind the target. Go to the channel WW II US Bombers, just last week or so he released a video that has the reports in it about that, I can't remember the title but it's something like "Aerial gunnery..." something or other, but it's a recent video so between that and whatever the title is when you see it you'll know it's what you're looking for.
A former friend of mine once built a radio-controlled model airplane and put an engine on it that was twice as powerful than what was recommended for the kit. He was a rather extreme person. His plane did fly, but it was on the verge of going out of control as I recall. That was only 40 years ago.
5:00 I was aware of Bernelli as an aerospace designer mostly for two things. One, his proposal and design work in the 1950's for an SSTO space-plane decades before the Space Shuttle was proposed. And two, for his work at the Continental Aircraft Company back in 1919, where he was apparently the only *SANE* person at the company during the infamous Christmas Bullet debacle.
Charles Lindburg was sent to the Pacific and showed crews how to adjust the engine to get better fuel economy while making the P38 even faster than Lockheed had promised.
He should have been decorated for doing the fuel adjustments considering that raid to get Admiral Yamamoto (pearl harbour architect) wouldn't have happened without the Lindberg fix.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo I think he was only in the Pacific as an Observer and not as a combatant, IIR, correct me if I'm wrong on this, although it turns out he flew some missions and downed a few Zero's and stuff. It was once gossip and word got out about it he was ordered back to the 'States. He was there in a civilian capacity and not a member of the armed forces which may have have made him unable to receive any military award even if they wanted to. I quite agree on your sentiments though.
@@Thenogomogo-zo3un that whole story of Lindbergh as a civilian is due to his pro nazi activity before the war. The president wanted him out of the military during the war.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo Yes you are right, he should have been but he was a civilian. He was sent to the Pacific because before the war he had been pro Nazi and believed in what they were doing. The Pacific was a way to keep him from defecting to the Nazis.
The more I watch the channel, the more I think The Narrator has a bunch of shower thoughts and pointless but amusing stories that he wants to tell and this is simply the vehicle for that. Whatever the case, I'm on board.
Since you mentioned your fav..Mine is the F-104..just so long as it has those pods on the ends of the wings. IMHO It is the most Sci-Fi looking fighter plane !! It just doesn't look right without those things on the wing tips. Are they fuel tanks?? I honestly don't know! The F-104 is featured in an episode of Star Trek!?
Merry Christmas to you, too. Had been waiting for you to cover the plane which bridged the og lightning and the final chain lightning. Slick big girl she is And I agree, *why on earth didn't they bother to take a pic of the plane IN FLIGHT?*
So what's wrong with that???? There are thousands of pictures of the Brits doing the same thing especially with the wildcat, hellcat, Corsair, TBM avenger, does that bother you??? So it's what's good for me is not good for thee!!!
Higher horsepower, longer and heavier engines often mean adding more airplane behind the wings to maintain a usable center of gravity, thus adding more weight and drag. There seems to be a point on the piston-engine, power -evolution curve where the increased weight, drag, and size overcomes the benefits of these increases. This I think naturally relates more to fighters than to say, a big bomber.
That's not a P47, every variant had 4 bladed props from the B to the N. I think that's a Wildcat. No, the landing gear is wrong, probably some kind of torpedo/dive bomber, but either way it's definitely not a P47. Yea, it's some kind of torpedo bomber, you can see it's bomb bay doors open on the bottom.
Sourcing the same browning heavy machine gun and ammunition for all three services on planes, tanks, half tracks, and infantry was a quartermaster’s dream.
I was always amazed to find out that Merlins couldn't counter-rotate like the Allisons and the Mossies had both engines spin in the same direction! Obviously, it wasn't a very big deal, but still it was surprising.
That R-2160 engine looks amazing. Whatever happened to it? All I can find is that it was used in a few prototype aircraft and then forgotten - there must be a more to its story.
I have never seen anyone refence that game. maybe it wasn't as obscure as I thought. I can still hear the announcer saying that in my head to this day.
@terrisommella720 Haha, I was in elementary school when I played it. even back then, I knew the lyrics to all the songs. parents were metal heads and dirt track racers.
Terminology: a strong engine is one that can survive being hit by a hammer, one with more output is more powerful. Calling an engine stronger seems to have crept in recently, possibly from automatic translation of German documents.
Dictionary definition: "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks." There are multiple definitions of strong so I give IHYLS a pass on this.
@ifrankymorrow true. Although still considered a separate property, generally, to powerful, measured in horsePOWER, underpinned by the scientific definition of power as work/time.
@@StormwatchNZ May have been, I'm not 100% sure. but it was a proper artillery piece. Was said that when fired it felt like the plane stood still in the air for a millisecond or so.
The P-38 itself was never allowed to reach its full potential. It would have been possible to build a P-38 with twin 2,000 HP Allison F series V-1710 engines, and twin four blade 13'-6" Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props in early 1944. Much of the compressibility problem could have been resolved with the improved wing roots and other modifications developed by NACA. The top speed would have exceeded 450 MPH in level flight, critical Mach would have been 0.72-0.75.
@@RedneckSpacemanMerlins were already on high-demand for P-51s. Not many US aircraft used it (i think only Mustangs did) Besides, the Allison did prove to be the better engine later in the war. Went from the underdog to the master.
Amazing stealth. Absolutely no one in the entire World thinks the Alison engines were ever better than the Rolls Royce engines. The Pratt and Whitney radials OTOH were magnificent.
@@Samuel-hd3cp Wrong. The brit centric non-factual books say the RR Merlin was touched by God. That's just wrong. It's the times the moving parts and makes less power.
@1:51 There was a Mosquito variant with a VERY large cannon slung underneath the fuselage. It had a slow rate of fire and, I think, 38 shells. The airframe had to be strengthened to stop the wooden aircraft ripping itself to pieces. The role: to puncture the pressure hulls of U-boats and either sink them directly or force them to stay on the surface. The RN will be along shortly....
Doing great, thanks for asking and Mele Kalikimaka from Hawai’i! The XP-49 makes me think of the 1969 Plymouth ‘Cuda 440 (and it’s sister, the Dodge Dart 440). Too much engine ruined what was a perfectly fine and sporty car with the 340 c.i.d. engine
I wonder how the DH Mosquito fared up against the P-38. Certainly would have been insane if they managed to use them in the pacific theater for the Doolittle raid.
Eh saying the P-38 had “1000hp” is a huge stretch, the (by far) most-produced variant of the P-38 had 1,600hp. I know you said “later they had more” but… I don’t really know about the premise of any of these prototype engines being “TOO MUCH” - they simply didn’t work and weren’t ready, while the 1710 quickly began developing a better hp/weight and size ratio anyways. I think what really happened is that the P-38 was so impressive right off the bat, and the 1710 became a pivotal US liquid-cooled engine, that they were both given funding to evolve rapidly into a platform that QUICKLY encroached on the performance of the XP-49. You had a smaller/lighter (and cheaper) plane with a well-known engine and similar training/maintenance in the P-38L that was almost as good as an “experiment”. That makes for a VERY tough sales pitch. I probably should have waited the last 2 min before writing this, as I guess this was basically your summary at the very end 🙈. Buuut… kinda took a convoluted path to get there lol. I don’t think many people started this video thinking the Lightning was ever a dog of a plane with 1000hp engines lol.
The answer to that may be two fold: * when the Packards became available, these were already assigned in high numbers for the P-51. * since the P-38 had excellent turbo superchargers to feed the Allisons, not much more would to be gained with the Packards.
@@charlesrousseau6837 Packard started building 20-series Merlins first - single stage, 2 speed. They were fitted to the P-40F and P-40L, and the bulk exported to the UK.
The turbocharged Allison, with proper maintenance, rigging, and fuel, is lighter, smaller, more powerful, and more reliable than the Merlin. And more fuel efficient. The F series V-1710 Allison was capable of 3400 RPM, at 80" of manifold pressure, for an output of 2,000 HP. The USAAF intentionally down rated the Allison. They were however rigged in the field for maximum output when 150 octane fuel was available. The G series was available in mid 1944, but the USAAF decided against buying it. It was even more powerful.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 They were capable of 2,000hp at the end of the war. As was the Merlin, which coudl deliver 2,000hp at 81 inHg MAP. Ltae model E and F series and G series engines were rated for 3,200rpm. Maybe some G series were capable of 3,400rpm. A single stage, single speed V-1710 is slightly lighter than a single stage, single speed Merlin, maybe 45kg (100lb) lighter than a single stage, two speed Merlin. In P-38s prior to the P-38J, the inetrcooler was installed in the leading edge of the wing. This restricted the power that could be made, even when improved versions of the V-1710 were installed. Including the weight of the turbocharger and associated piping, the V-1710 was similar in weight to the 2 stage Merlins, but the weight of those varied quite a bit depending on accessories fitted. The turbocharged V-1710 was indeed more fuel efficient than the Merlin. That is partly due to the advantage of turbocharging, and also that early versions of the engine used a higher compression ratio. The V-1710 had a smaller frontal area than the Merlin, largely because of using downdraft carburettor, rather than the Merlin's updraft carburettor. However, the V-1710 was longer than the equivalent Merlin, and when coupled with the turbocharger took up a lot more space than a 2 stage Merlin. Prior to the war, US engines did not have a combat or war emergency rating. This was introduced in 1941 or 1942, so numbers prior to that may not be directly comparable.
The P-38 already had problems with control due to compression. Adding a bunch more horsepower so it could fly farther into compression would only create more trouble.
Power to weight is the correct metric. Power alone doesn't say enough, and neither does weight alone. Assuming reliability is unaffected. Anyone who has piloted an underpowered aircraft knows overpowered is not the problem that underpowered is.
I’m surprised that the Merlin engine that was used in the P 51 was not considered for the P 38. The P 51 initially used the Allison engine. And then upgraded to the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
They were considered. Lockheed drew up the modifications required to re-engine the aircraft. The Merlin reduced the climb performance of the aircraft but elevated top speed. The only real advantage was reliability when using the gas available in the ETO. It didn’t matter. It is quite possible the British Government refused to allow the engine be mounted on a Lockheed product. The British cancelled their order for “castrated Lightnings.” Castrated meant the order was for lightnings without Turbosuperchargers or contra-rotating propellers. Lockheed was NOT happy with the decision thinking they delivered what the British had asked for, against their advice, and the British should honor the deal. Lockheed went to great lengths to enforce the contract, but it was of no avail. Allegedly, the British were rather perturbed at Lockheed. Mind you though, this is the assertion of one historian. It has never been established this is true by others.
The XP49 was waiting for engines, and waiting and waiting. The RAF had similar issues with some of their aircraft. Overcoming engine torque? The F8F Bearcat seemed to have had a workaround. It took years for Allison to use a reduction gear that worked, well more than occasionally. Why continue the XP49 when the XP 80 was coming. Also a Lockheed product.
Could probably have been made to fit, but there is the issue of availability - only ~6,000 Griffons were built. I am not sure if there were plans to build the Griffon in the US, but if there were, production engines woudln't come off the line until very late in the war. If the I-1430s actually developed 1,600hp, or they had sustitude V-1710s of 1,400hp-1,600hp the XP-49 may have improved upon the P-38's performance.
The F4 is an example of an aircraft that required delicate handling because the engine had so much power. If the aircraft in this video made it into production, it may have also had issues that were difficult to handle because the engines had so much power relative to its airframe.
3:36 also well after the Fokker G-1 has matured well into a nearly perfect twin engine 'hunter/cruiser' type fighter. The type was built in limited numbers from 1936 onwards and because of WW2 it's production and development halted but it had some serious influence on designs like this, as you'll see in it's specs and features. Funnily enough the Fokker G-1 was a dead end and would have not been useful after 41' as a frontline unit except for maybe Indonesia for exactly the same reasons as why this airplane never got anywhere
On the "single engine fighter with a 75mm cannon", the Soviets fooled around with mounting 76.2mm recoilless weapons on I-16 fighters (Designated as the I-Z). The test pilots claimed they were "absolutely terrifying to fly and fire" and the program was cancelled.
Early in WW2 ( before the Americans woke up ) the British fitted very reliable .303 machine guns to their fighters because they had perfected the .303 guns and tons of ammo already made, and for inexperienced pilots the more rounds you could give the pilot to shoot and the more lead in the air over a wider area the more likely they were to hit something, so that was a good strategy... Later on aircraft like Beaufighter and Mossie and other aircraft designed to hit bombers and ground targets got cannon. Remember the Brits had already degraded Lufwaffe by the time the Yanks turned up...
That's absolutely laughable, everything about that post is laughable. By WW2 the .303 was no more than a deer hunting cartridge and had no business being on aircraft, it's exactly why RAF bombers couldn't defend themselves and had to switch to night bombing, the German fighter pilots would engage them at 700 yards with their cannons and simply break away at unscathed at the 400 yard maximum effective range of the .303's, the RAF's daylight losses made the 8th Air Force's Black Thursday raid on Schweinfurt look like a joke, there were RAF daylight mission's that had 70% losses because they couldn't defend themselves with those .303 guns. You can put as many .303's as you want in the wings of a fighter that doesn't increase their range, what saved the RAF during the Battle of Britain was the fact that German fighters only had about 10 minutes over England then they had to head back or they'd run out of fuel, the RAF knew full well by the end of the Battle of Britain that the .303 was woefully inadequate in fighters and is why they poured all their resources into getting cannons working right in fighters, with those .303's the fighter pilots had to close on a target until it filled their windscreen to have any effect. And the Luftwaffe was hardly "degraded" by the time the USAAF showed up, you've been listening to beer muscles talking down at the pub, they still had all their bases on the French coast that would launch raids and slap the RAF around over England when the 8th came over, their first order of business after getting there was driving those Luftwaffe bases inland, that was the USAAF that did that, not the RAF, the Luftwaffe didn't even bother moving any of those ridiculously high scoring aces from the east to the west over the RAF, doing that was their response to the 8th Air Force getting there, and guess who bagged most of those high scoring aces that were moved there from the east, 8th Air Force fighter pilots is who, Gunther Rall, 3rd highest scoring ace of all time with over 275 kills, moved west and after just 2 more got shot down by P47's of the 56th Fighter Group, P47 pilot Robert S Johnson of the 56th Fighter Group's 5th kill that made him an ace was a German pilot moved west that had over 200 kills, like all the rest of them with those ridiculous scores after getting moved to the west they were lucky to get one or two before the fighter pilots of the USAAF made quick work of them. "Degraded" what a joke, the Luftwaffe was at its height from experience in the Spanish Civil War and honing its skills shooting down the RAF when the USAAF showed up in Europe, and went to work on them.
@@dukecraig2402 British bombers flew at night, and even Yanks regretted their daylight bombing because of huge losses... They failed to listen to RAF Bomber command, but then that Yanks knew it all, the Germans had no respect for American soldiers and the yanks never realised how tough the Germans were.... The RAF had destroyed so many German aircraft by the end of BoB that the Germans knew they could never muster the air cover to invade UK, they had to switch to night bombing and even that got risky after British developed cavity magnetron to build powerful lightweight very short wave radar for aircraft. It is easy for the Yanks to criticise because they arrived late as usual and had more time to prepare, and their factories were not getting bombed. Even after D Day the Americans had the 'soft route' going south and west from beaches when majority of German armour and troops were to the east, where the Brits and Canadians had to go that is why yanks never saw a Tiger tank or any of the best German troops because the south and west of France was a 'soft posting' for Germans. Do not believe the Hollywood version of WW2 ....
@@dukecraig2402 The Spanish Civil war ended in 1939 just as WW2 proper started in Europe, The yanks did not join in till two years after war started, by which time the RAF had fought and won battle of Britain against those 'Spanish civil war honed Lufwaffe pilots'. The attrition of Luftwaffe best pilots was done by the RAF, then the Yanks turned up and claimed victory - Hollywood style.
@chrissmith2114 Once again, nonsense, the Luftwaffe still occupied all its airbases along the French coast and hadn't even moved any pilots over from the east before the USAAF showed up, because they were slapping the RAF around at will and ran the skies over Europe.
Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton PaulBowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul
If for this, I strongly believe the XP-50 was the better option by far. A smaller and lighter airframe with two smaller engines that, while underpowered on their own, made good power combined. Small airframe with small engines = cheaper. And if you thing about it, it wouldn't have been hard to make a R-1830 equipped variant with more power later on, if the 1820 wasnt enough to keep up.
The .50 cal was more than adequate and had as much armor piercing power as the 20mm. Our 20 mm was not debugged in W2. Stupid. P-38 pilots were known to remove them, as four .50 focused in the nose would wreck anything quickly.
Grumman's 'design 41' visual appearance makes one imagine the beginnings of the F7F Tigercat.
It was that.
XF5F Skyrocket lead to the XP-50, XP-50 lead to the XP-65, and the XP-65 lead to the F7F Tigercat.
@@FirstDagger XP-65 and XF&F-1 were contemporaneous, both deriving from the same design studies.
F7F does not get the love it deserves by WWII nuts.
The F7F were designed to operate off the new Midway class carriers. No one expected the war to end in 1945. Golden gate by 48 was the saying during the Pacific war.
The P-49 looks cool but keeping the engines from melting would have been a pain. Happy holidays! Thank you for all the time you put into these!
A big part of the problems with the P38 and likely also the P49 was its COST. Greg's Airplanes goes into this pretty extensively covering most of the key aircraft of WW II and usually mentioning the cost per unit (If I remember right P38 was over twice the cost of other key fighters like P47 and definitely much more than P51 which was the best deal of all). The P38 was popular with the command, who jockeyed to obtain as many of this airplane as they could get (many wound up in the Pacific Theater where their range was a great plus and they did not need to travel at over 20k ft altitude). Also, the P38 had complaints around the temperature in the center nacelle with the pilot and controls. Apparently the heating was not ideal, and thus the P38 had a far better time down in the Pacific where it did not have to act as bomber escort at high altitude. P38 was deemed the best gun platform as far as easy sighting of target of all these fighters due to the centerline placement of the weapons.
The P-38s units in the 5th and 13th Air Forces had bomber escort as a priority mission. So many misconceptions in the comments.
And the P-38 had a longer range 20mm cannon that fired in addition to the 4 -.50 cal machine guns. Given that it did not have the convergence issue - you had for the time what was an insane amount of firepower. The altitude issue with the 38 was due to early development teething problems on earlier models due to carb icing, intercooler, and turbo issues with freezing, not to mention the cockpit heating issue. And the lower temperatures in the EU theatre caused more issues with the compressibility in a dive problem, again, not "resolved" until at the least the J versions. One of the biggest issues was because it was the world's first 400mph fighter and designed before some of the later NACA drag studies, it didn't benefit fully from those techniques like our later fighters did. In addition to drag issues with all the little scoops, gun port drag, etc even though the later Allison's were making well over 1600HP with 2000HP in sight - they never installed the four blade paddle props that would allow it to make use of all the extra HP. Those two issues limited the top speed and given the complexity, cost, and supply chain issues with a twin engine design - it was used most effectively in the Pacific theatre where its limitations didn't impact its effectiveness against the Japanese.
@@Mike-eq4ky
Convergence isn't the issue with mixed guns, it's trajectory, at the 400 yard convergence they're going to hit at pretty much the same place, but those underpowered cannons are going to start dropping like bricks after that, and yes they're underpowered as far as trajectory goes, look at a modern US 20×120mm, they have the proportions of a AK47 7.62×39mm cartridge, if you know anything about rifle cartridges you know they're anemic and underpowered compared to .30/06 Springfield (US .30 cal), and those WW2 20mm's weren't even necked down cartridges, they were pretty much straight walled, almost like a pistol cartridge, all those WW2 aircraft cannons were like that and their projectiles had the trajectory of a rainbow, they didn't need serious ballistics as they were explosive projectiles, with the .50 cal it was it's ballistics, its punching power, that'd push it through many layers of materials or thick materials that did damage, that and you had a whole bunch of them between their firing rate and the increased number of guns over aircraft with 20mm's, that made the .50's like buzz saws when they hit aircraft, alot of these guys will claim "They were only good in the Pacific against the lightly built Japanese planes, against the German fighters they were ineffective", clearly they've never seen the number of German aircraft shot down by US fighters or the gun camera footage showing parts, sometimes wings, flying off of them when hit by a burst.
P38 pilots could switch guns on and off, even individual .50's, they could fire just two if they wanted, all four or all four and their cannon, or just the cannon, it all depended on the situation, but because of the trajectory difference they'd never have fired their .50's and the cannon all at once at a target that was at long range, the cannon shells would have been dropping well below the .50's at any kind of serious range and would just be wasted.
@@Mike-eq4ky A good synopsis of the info around this amazing aircraft. This info is also what Greg from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles (on You Tube; a great channel which uses original NACA docs, as well as all the original manuals and military training materials he can find to go over quite a lot of depth info on these amazing machines) mentions - he talks about the NACA drag study and the exterior of the earlier P38 models. Greg also covers Axis aircraft.
A thing you need to understand is that the USA wanted to go over to 20mm cannons even before they entered WW2. They bought the blueprints for 20mm Hispano cannons, manufactured a lot of them and a buttload of ammo. Having done that, they tested them. Spoiler alert: You test the prototypes, not the production variant. Turns out the chamber was too long and the guns were horribly unreliable. Solutions: a) Re-manufacture the chamber or shim it. Or b) Muck about with other parts and hope for the best. The USA went for b) and American fighters used 50-cal 'not enough gun' into the Korean war.
It was also found that the .50s were broadly sufficient in most cases.. I mean, the Japanese and Brits were running like .30 call machine guns for a long time
I think the USA said "the Brits have tested these and we've used the same dimensions, right?"
@@chickenfishhybrid44 both Japan and the UK moved over to primarily 20mm and higher by 1940-41. 50s were just about competitive, but the optimal caliber tests after WW2 judged them to be 1/4 as effective per round, 1/3 per gun. This is less efficient given weight of guns and ammunition. The USA repeatedly tried to make 20mm guns work in its aircraft in WW2, underlining that 50s were lagging. Thankfully, they were available and equal best in class, else the USA would have had serious issues.
The Brits advised on 2 vital modifications to the 20mm Hispano to adopt: the shortened chamber (2mm) and the triple wire return spring that the Americans opted not to incorporate. This resulted in frequent 'lightly struck cap' stoppages. We tried to help.........!
Isn’t this just because the Americans changed or refused to change something that cause all the issues 😂
Reminds me of the DH Hornet, which had two 100-series Merlins that made 2000 HP each. Eric Brown said it was way overpowered (it could do aerobatics with one prop feathered), but for a design that went into production in 1945, it was relatively successful, with almost 400 produced.
Just saying, I ALWAYS learn something from your videos.
Thanks for all the research, can't imagine getting all these facts is easy.
The “c” in Bellanca is a hard c (k) not a soft c (s). Just sayin’.
Exactly! This guy ought to talk to some actual pilots before going to press with his expert knowledge.
Came to say this- I am not here to give him a hard time about it though. When people know the word but don’t pronounce it correctly, it’s because they read it. More people should read!
@@Metalwolf765I hear you, BUT the c comes before an an and in every language I can think of, that means the c is hard. It doesn’t have a cedilla under it, so it’s hard.
Damned autocorrect! The c comes before an a, not an “an”.
The bigger error is the use of “mil” to mean millimeter when referring to the cannon size. A mil is one thousandth of an inch, NOT a millimeter. A 30 mil cannon is really puny when you consider that 40 mil is a millimeter!
Engines ahead of the nose allows them to be closer together, reducing thrust issues with one engine out
I think he is reading from official reports for most of that. I could be wrong, but I kept thinking of additional down the line upgrades that would be required like the heat shielding and it seemed like it was pretty thorough, and since he mentioned them upgrading the heat shielding, I got the sense it wasn't him guessing.
It also improves roll rate by putting the weight closer to the center, which is why the Me 410 did that.
@builder396 with something for carriers, single-engined performance is more the issue, though. Fairey handled it differently with various WW2 designs by having two engines in the fuselage, culminating with the Gannet with the Double Mamba. Although a single engine, the halves could be turned off individually which helped loiter. In all cases, no asymmetric thrust, but at the expense of complexity.
Wow, I never realized the technology back then had already reached these heights. Your explanations are super clear-thanks for sharing! I’m a huge fan of unusual experimental aircraft myself...
Thank you. That was an informative and humerous presentation, and delivered (I think) by a human with an interesting voice. Thank you for your effort.
Excellent Aviation history, thoroughly interesting as always. Great Stuff
Thank you fpr showing this,Very good,I had no idea about the XP-49.
The phrases 'overpowered ' or 'underpowered' always referred to the engine(s), not the armament.
Agreed.
For armament, I'd go with under- or over-armed, or gunned.
0:14 starting a documentary with one of the best modern waifu really sets the mood here. Then again, Power was known to be anaemic when she used too much blood for her attacks and honestly with the fate of the “Lightning but bigger” XP-58 a weapons platform being supersized most often results in a more lethargic performance.
Also, while we’re on the topic of power, the turbocharged Allisons are more than adequate for the mission profiles of the P-38. No amount of power can really fix the compressibility issues NACA and Lockheed had to deal with. The late model P-38s go beyond 410mph while still maintaining reasonable fuel economy, which coupled with Lindbergh’s fuel trim tricks can really push their limits.
Merry Christmas, Mr. IHYLS!
Anime enjoyer confirmed 🎉
@@zaphodqi122 Anime and history documentary is a giant venn diagram and in my case it just happens to be both Chainsaw Man and WWII era warplanes.
They had fixes for the P38's compressability issues, its drag issues and just about any other issue people claim made it a bad fighter, but the USAAF rejected them because they didn't want production interrupted, the latest models were doing the job and their priority was more of them instead of less improved variants.
The big issue with power in the early models was the leading edge wing mounted innercoolers for the superchargers, the problem was to make more power means more boost, more boost means bigger innercoolers, with that design bigger innercoolers meant redesigning the wings, redesigning the wings meant a serious drop in production, every time Allison wanted to put another 200 HP on the engine Lockheed would have to redesign the wings, the two didn't see eye to eye on how to handle the problem needless to say.
After they got the innercoolers out of the wings power increases were much easier to implement.
@@dukecraig2402 Lockheed had the foresight NOT to redesign the wings, which would’ve killed its legendary handling. For a twin boom design the P-38 was quite an agile bird until the aforementioned compressibility issues arise, which was solved easily through better pilot training and change of combat tactics.
That being said, WWII intercooler design isn’t exactly my forte (and so does for many nations at that time) but as I recall Japan solved the power choke issues by fitting direct injection on their turbocharged radials (particularly the Homare engines). Late war Japanese radials gained some really impressive power per cubic inches ratio, which was only hampered with the worsened build quality.
@@Nafeels
Training pilots to avoid compressibility didn't cure the lower speed it happened at, it gave the P38 a very low critical mach number and meant they couldn't dive away from an enemy, trying that in them got alot of P38 pilots killed, as I said Lockheed had a solution to compressibility but it was such a redesign it would have cut production drastically, luckily in the Pacific where it was mostly used in the fighter role the Zero couldn't dive for squat either so fixing the P38's compressibility problem just wasn't a priority.
It wasn't hardly agile either, it had a very slow roll rate that wasn't cured until the last variant that had hydraulic boosted ailerons.
Innercoolers are pretty simple, they're basically just like radiators, need more cooling, you need a bigger unit, higher supercharger boost pressure means you're heating the air more because you're compressing it more, to counter it you need a bigger innercooler to counter the heat, if you can't then the reduction in ignition timing and other things you have to do in order to keep from getting engine knock from your intake air being heated counters the added power from increased boost, so ultimately you're not making anymore power if you can't cool the higher boosted charge, the original design of the P38 had the innercoolers in the leading edges of the wings therefore you couldn't put bigger innercoolers in it without redesigning the wings, something that would have choked production every time Allison could put another 200 HP on the engines because higher octane fuels allowed higher boost levels.
When the P38 was originally developed US aviation fuel had around 90 or so octane, by the end of the war they had it up around 130, everytime it was increased allowed more boost for the engines, but once again without being able to cool the higher boosted intake air with bigger innercoolers you couldn't take advantage of the higher octane levels.
There was a version of Yak-9 that had a 45 mm cannon in the prop hub, I think that was the largest (I'm aware of) cannon carried by a single engine fighter as equipped from the manufacturer.
Amazing video. Thanks for putting this together.
A standard P-38 is perfectly capable of handling 2,500+HP engines without any airframe mods, air racers figured out how to boost late/post war allisons way up there and the P-38 had no issues flying with all of that extra power. The engines didn't last long, obviously, but the airframes were fine all the same.
But you need big four-blade paddle props once you get beyond about 1400HP to make use of all the extra HP. That's a big part of what limited top speed in the war, that they never made the change from the 3 blade prop during the war. But it was a solid airframe for sure.
more power from the same engine isn't the same as adding bigger engines and fuel tanks. the added weight effects everything from range to G forces even at the same speeds.
@@Mike-eq4ky One of the reasons they never got far in Reno was because they'd reach critical mach a lot sooner than their contemporaries. In a way, post war air racing answered a lot of WWII's what-if questions...in this case, if the P-38 was upgraded to the teeth for max speed during the war, it would've underperformed and the airframe wouldn't have made good use of that power. Perhaps it would've made a difference in the war for a short time with the element of surprise until the enemy figured out the P-38 was now capable of a higher top speed and climb rate than they expected, but they'd adjust and the advantage would be minimal overall.
@@janderson4423 The additional weight is irrelevant to the matter of the airframe not being able to handle the extra power. I'm not arguing that it wasn't able to handle the additional weight of larger engines and fuel tanks airframe wise, that wasn't even what I was talking about. The video made a big point of explaining that the additional POWER, not weight, was the issue. Things like P-factor and the verticals not being big enough for the same power that late war P-38's were functioning just fine with. It's contradictory. He didn't have to mention any of the power considerations. The weight and packaging of the larger engines were the only noteworthy things hampering this project, as P-38's have proven they're more than capable of handling the additional power that the XP-49 was intended to use. The additional fuel is irrelevant as well, since it doesn't much matter what engine you're using, the fuel requirement will be be pretty close to the same if you're utilizing the same power settings. In other words, if it had the Continentals and used 1400HP during an intercept, it's going to burn roughly the same fuel as the Allisons running at 1400HP doing the same thing. Fuel wasn't an issue with late war P-38's, so they were making a big fuss over nothing, ultimately they ended up using the same fuel tanks that the P-38's were being upgraded with anyway. Retrospectively the only thing standing in their way was the weight and packaging of the engines, and that was an issue they already dealt with after making the prototype. Had the Continental been widely available and reliable, a handful of mechanics on an island in the Pacific probably could've retrofitted a P-38 with them in a similar way to how the Brits strapped a Merlin to the P-51, it's really not that difficult. The problem that killed the XP-49 was the same that killed most other aircraft that could've been fantastic during the war...their new experimental engines always ended up being trash. Lockheed wasn't faced with the issue of overpowering the P-38, they were faced with using an experimental engine that failed.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper The XP-49 handled the power with the same vertical stabilizers as the P-38s, he just said they noted they *should* be larger. Who is to say the P-38 could not benefit from the same change?
Also, you need to consider the possibility that when he said, "frame" it may not have specifically been in reference to the actual space frame of the P-38 and XP-49, but rather the design as a whole.
Sure, the airframe might "handle" the power in terms of sheer strength, just like a first gen VW Golf can handle 1200hp out of a twin turbo big block.
That, however, differs greatly from a plane "handling" the power, and having desirable flight characteristics possibly with a full combat load of fuel, bombs, armament, ammunition, and armor. And, with that additional load and increased speed from the additional power, how would the frame cope with the forces applied in maneuvers?
There's way too many factors at play to be criticizing that statement, especially when aircraft like the F4F and P-40 benefited so well from being overbuilt.
Does anyone else wish he'd stop putting a dim filter over the pictures he uses?
I think he's increasing the contrast. I know what you mean - it makes it really hard to see the detail.
Yes. It’s annoying and there’s no good reason to dim the image.
I hate it when directors of TV shows or movies try to use excessive quantities of low light situation to show a somber, dangerous, or other sort of dramatic mood for the work, because they feel it makes them cleverly artistic. Instead, it makes it difficult to discern the environment or the characters on screen. An example of this would be the 2024 crime drama Cross, starring Aldis Hodge. It appears to have an interesting, very suspenseful plot, and Hodge is an excellent actor, but I got so tired of squinting at the screen trying to figure out which characters were being displayed, and where they were that I gave up watching it.
Huh. I’ve been a huge fan of the P-38 since I was a kid but I’d never heard of the XP-49 before this video. Thank you for introducing me to the Lightning’s red headed stepchild.
"Chainsawman" reference with the character who goes by the name, Power? God, I love this channel 😅
Since there was no mass production of the thing, I guess you could call it the XP- Forty-NEIN!
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!
You are a funny person! Thank you the laughs and grins!
Have a great Christmas matey.
I love your content, and your sense of humor too.
09:06 if anyone is wondering, I think the narrator of Rock and Roll racing said that 'in another time zone' when a racer got exploded or got in last in the race...something like that
I get it! I love that game back in the day. I play a super Nintendo though
Hi. Thanks heaps. Narrator has a stratospheric sense of humour. Uses the word "dormant", followed by a brief shot of a baby critter snoozing. We need more of this. Some planes were "lame ducks", and others flew like "brick sh---houses". It shouldn't be too difficult to find a photogenic lame duck somewhere or drop a dunny from a crane to get an air-to-air shot of aeronautical research in action. I reckon you'd get 96 million views, not 96 thousand. Chocks away, and Cheers, P.R.
Man…
It that time frame?
They were looking at everything and Anything that could stomp a mudhole in Everybody.
I can’t hate them for it…I would too…if I was in an active war with multiple major powers.
Crazy stuff mate!
Great vid!
Thanks!
😎👍
MERRY CHRISTMAS 🎁🎄🎁
From America 🦅
Someone in the middle east aquired Focke Wulf 190s with Junker bomber engines (...or Jumo 213) after WW2.
They had problems with flipping the plane while still being on the ground.
@@Niklas.K95 109s, not 190s. Avia versions supplied to Israel by the Czechs
@@wbertie2604 My bad. Still insane
Merry Christmas 🎄🎅
More horsepower does not negate the limitations of the airframe max speed. Thus the implementation of the diving flaps on the underside of the wings, that were necessary for the P-38 to retain control in a steep dive.
when Lockheed was asked if they wanted to attach an engine that would yeet themselves out of the wing mounts their response was "we'll take that bet"
Merry Christmas to you.
The Yak-9-57 was a one-off conversion of a Yak-9UT armed with a 57 mm cannon.[20] The large caliber cannon did not protrude from the spinner cone like the Yak-9-37/45 models.
My home town Santa Maria Ca airport was originally built as a”Hancock field” to train bomber pilots. The landing strip was originally “marson mat” on the loose sandy terrain in the area, and could not support the weight of the bombers. They transitioned to training P38 fighters. There were a few that went down, one was south east of Twitchel reservoir and has not been recovered.
New subscriber. Love your posts. No idea how I went this long without bumping into your channel. 👍👍👍
I’ll approach the cannon issue from an Infantry point of view. Many post-war studies (WW2 & Korea) of human behavior attempted to understand why it was human nature to hold fire until the enemy was close enough for a definite kill rather than take advantage of a gun’s max effective range at distance. Prime example is why have a full power 30-06 battle rifle fully capable of killing at 1000yds when troops held fire until the enemy was only 250 yds away (thus the adoption of the smaller, lighter 5.56).
That same behavior was recognized by the Germans, so their solution was the MG42. Extremely fast rate of fire to “shotgun” the target with a burst. That same concept lent longevity to using 6 or 8 .50 cals on aircraft. More rounds on target as quick as possible to shred said target. Fighter pilots tended to follow this same quirk of human behavior to get close before firing, and once they did, knowing that multiple fast-firing guns would shred the opponent. Once again, more rounds on target per burst.
Of course the 20mm was deadlier per round, but fewer cannon at a slower rate of fire with less magazine capacity does play upon one’s 1940’s brain.
So as the designers were trying to unfock what they did to the Hispano, there was comfort in knowing that pilots were very content with the massive rate of fire from 6/8 .50’s.
True happiness came with the M61 Vulcan at 6,000 or 4,000 rpm, depending on hydraulic or electric.
Now would a Crusader driver of 1958 give up his four individual 20mm cannon for 8 .50’s, I would think not. But by this time the 20’s had reliability and rate of fire.
Just a point of view from someone who has been in overseas engagements and lived through what volume of fire can do for you.
Actually a study done during the war showed that not only fighter pilots but also bomber gunners started firing when their targets were further away than what would have given the best results, in most cases it was because they weren't judging the distance correctly, if they were trained to start firing once they'd closed to 400 yards they were usually starting to fire at 600 yards instead, in the case of deflection shooting because of that they were firing well behind the target.
Go to the channel WW II US Bombers, just last week or so he released a video that has the reports in it about that, I can't remember the title but it's something like "Aerial gunnery..." something or other, but it's a recent video so between that and whatever the title is when you see it you'll know it's what you're looking for.
Henscel hs129 was beaten by the Tsetse Mosquito with a Molins 6pdr gun in the nose as well as the standard guns
You are correct Sir , it is indeed posting on Christmas Eve.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I really enjoy your videos .,
A former friend of mine once built a radio-controlled model airplane and put an engine on it that was twice as powerful than what was recommended for the kit. He was a rather extreme person. His plane did fly, but it was on the verge of going out of control as I recall. That was only 40 years ago.
Gobs of torque. Adverse yaw anyone?
Is that an A-35, Vultee Vengeance at 1:58??
Nice.good job.
9:26 An Me 262 with propellers and a twin tail? Interesting how similar shapes turn up.
The “C” in Bellanca is a hard c sound. Not an “s” sound.
Yes! It is said "BellanKa".
5:00 I was aware of Bernelli as an aerospace designer mostly for two things. One, his proposal and design work in the 1950's for an SSTO space-plane decades before the Space Shuttle was proposed. And two, for his work at the Continental Aircraft Company back in 1919, where he was apparently the only *SANE* person at the company during the infamous Christmas Bullet debacle.
Charles Lindburg was sent to the Pacific and showed crews how to adjust the engine to get better fuel economy while making the P38 even faster than Lockheed had promised.
He should have been decorated for doing the fuel adjustments considering that raid to get Admiral Yamamoto (pearl harbour architect) wouldn't have happened without the Lindberg fix.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo I think he was only in the Pacific as an Observer and not as a combatant, IIR, correct me if I'm wrong on this, although it turns out he flew some missions and downed a few Zero's and stuff. It was once gossip and word got out about it he was ordered back to the 'States. He was there in a civilian capacity and not a member of the armed forces which may have have made him unable to receive any military award even if they wanted to. I quite agree on your sentiments though.
@@Thenogomogo-zo3un that whole story of Lindbergh as a civilian is due to his pro nazi activity before the war. The president wanted him out of the military during the war.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo The mission that got Yamamoto was in April 1943. Lindbergh did not go to the Pacific until mid 1944.
@@BenjaminRowe-hc7uo Yes you are right, he should have been but he was a civilian. He was sent to the Pacific because before the war he had been pro Nazi and believed in what they were doing. The Pacific was a way to keep him from defecting to the Nazis.
The more I watch the channel, the more I think The Narrator has a bunch of shower thoughts and pointless but amusing stories that he wants to tell and this is simply the vehicle for that. Whatever the case, I'm on board.
The p38 was very overpowered at low altitude over Europe. Great for ground attack. My favorite plane of all time.
Since you mentioned your fav..Mine is the F-104..just so long as it has those pods on the ends of the wings. IMHO It is the most Sci-Fi looking fighter plane !! It just doesn't look right without those things on the wing tips. Are they fuel tanks?? I honestly don't know! The F-104 is featured in an episode of Star Trek!?
@@RedneckSpacemanyes they are
Merry Christmas to you, too. Had been waiting for you to cover the plane which bridged the og lightning and the final chain lightning. Slick big girl she is
And I agree, *why on earth didn't they bother to take a pic of the plane IN FLIGHT?*
I find it very interesting that you chose an image of a British spitfire with American markings.
So what's wrong with that???? There are thousands of pictures of the Brits doing the same thing especially with the wildcat, hellcat, Corsair, TBM avenger, does that bother you??? So it's what's good for me is not good for thee!!!
And?
The US Army operated at least 6 squadrons of Spirfires mostly in N Africa.
It's a p-39 aircobra,not a spitfire.
Benjamin Rowe. No it's a Spitfire.
A person who has a 100 pound card collection is a cardiac.
Most Illogical!🖖
If they keep them in a back pocket they're a Cardassian.
@@strayling1 'kin 'ell! Groan. Merry Xmas.
Great video
Higher horsepower, longer and heavier engines often mean adding more airplane behind the wings to maintain a usable center of gravity, thus adding more weight and drag. There seems to be a point on the piston-engine, power -evolution curve where the increased weight, drag, and size overcomes the benefits of these increases. This I think naturally relates more to fighters than to say, a big bomber.
Boy that photo of ground crews working on the P-47 really puts its size into prospective.
That's not a P47, every variant had 4 bladed props from the B to the N.
I think that's a Wildcat.
No, the landing gear is wrong, probably some kind of torpedo/dive bomber, but either way it's definitely not a P47.
Yea, it's some kind of torpedo bomber, you can see it's bomb bay doors open on the bottom.
Sourcing the same browning heavy machine gun and ammunition for all three services on planes, tanks, half tracks, and infantry was a quartermaster’s dream.
I was always amazed to find out that Merlins couldn't counter-rotate like the Allisons and the Mossies had both engines spin in the same direction!
Obviously, it wasn't a very big deal, but still it was surprising.
And they ordered 38's without the counter rotating props.
Showing Power from Chainsawman was an up alone! Merry Christmas!
That R-2160 engine looks amazing. Whatever happened to it? All I can find is that it was used in a few prototype aircraft and then forgotten - there must be a more to its story.
Those Hyper Engines did not work.
Taco Tuesday
Christmas Eve
And most of all
A new video from you.
Thank you.
D
As to the reason for tricycle landing gear - taildraggers are notoriously hard to fly in comparison, so that's probably it.
Good luck making a twin boom into a tail dragger.
@dukecraig2402 twin boom was not a requirement. Twin engine was.
Power my beloved
Merry Christmas
At 2:00 you refer to radial engines but show a photo of a Rotary. There is quite a difference.
"In another time zone." Love the Rock and Roll Racing reference. 😊
I have never seen anyone refence that game. maybe it wasn't as obscure as I thought. I can still hear the announcer saying that in my head to this day.
@Thedailygrind90 Wasted a lot of hours in high school because of that game. It's ridiculous, yet extremely fun.
@terrisommella720 Haha, I was in elementary school when I played it. even back then, I knew the lyrics to all the songs. parents were metal heads and dirt track racers.
Excellent video as always! Consider “aerobatic” for “acrobatic”. (My flight instructor wouldn’t let me do either one!) 😂
Talk about the XP-54 Swoose Goose.
Terminology: a strong engine is one that can survive being hit by a hammer, one with more output is more powerful. Calling an engine stronger seems to have crept in recently, possibly from automatic translation of German documents.
Dictionary definition: "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks."
There are multiple definitions of strong so I give IHYLS a pass on this.
@rolanddutton it's a change in standard usage that seems to have become prevalent only in the last ten years.
And yet another usage of “strong” in relation to IC engines can be to suggest disproportionately high torque at low revs.
@ifrankymorrow true. Although still considered a separate property, generally, to powerful, measured in horsePOWER, underpinned by the scientific definition of power as work/time.
Some B25 G bombers had a 75mm cannon on them.
And aircrews disliked those short nosed variants as they had poor flight characteristics, preferring the 8 .50 cal gun nose instead.
The 75mm cannon I believe was the same type as the one put on M4 Shermans. It had to be manually loaded by one of the flight crew.
@@Thenogomogo-zo3unI thought it was used in the Chaffee light tank
@@StormwatchNZ May have been, I'm not 100% sure. but it was a proper artillery piece. Was said that when fired it felt like the plane stood still in the air for a millisecond or so.
The P-38 itself was never allowed to reach its full potential. It would have been possible to build a P-38 with twin 2,000 HP Allison F series V-1710 engines, and twin four blade 13'-6" Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props in early 1944.
Much of the compressibility problem could have been resolved with the improved wing roots and other modifications developed by NACA. The top speed would have exceeded 450 MPH in level flight, critical Mach would have been 0.72-0.75.
What about a pair of Merlins or Gryphons???
@@RedneckSpacemanMerlins were already on high-demand for P-51s. Not many US aircraft used it (i think only Mustangs did)
Besides, the Allison did prove to be the better engine later in the war. Went from the underdog to the master.
Very much so. @@amazingstealth8235
Amazing stealth.
Absolutely no one in the entire World thinks the Alison engines were ever better than the Rolls Royce engines.
The Pratt and Whitney radials OTOH were magnificent.
@@Samuel-hd3cp Wrong. The brit centric non-factual books say the RR Merlin was touched by God. That's just wrong. It's the times the moving parts and makes less power.
@1:51
There was a Mosquito variant with a VERY large cannon slung underneath the fuselage. It had a slow rate of fire and, I think, 38 shells. The airframe had to be strengthened to stop the wooden aircraft ripping itself to pieces.
The role: to puncture the pressure hulls of U-boats and either sink them directly or force them to stay on the surface. The RN will be along shortly....
Mosquito “tsetse” variant with the 57mm molins cannon. It turned out that rockets were a better option so not many were built
@StormwatchNZ
Thank you.
'Molins' was rattling around in my head. I think I saw one at the RAF museum, Hendon, North London.
It's pronounced "belanka". I live a couple miles from where they were built in Newcastle Delaware. Their airfield is a museum there now.
GREAT LOOKING "STILL'S"!!!
I can think of at least one WW1 aircraft with 8 machine guns: the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets.
Zeppelin-Staaken R.XIV had 6.
Doing great, thanks for asking and Mele Kalikimaka from Hawai’i!
The XP-49 makes me think of the 1969 Plymouth ‘Cuda 440 (and it’s sister, the Dodge Dart 440). Too much engine ruined what was a perfectly fine and sporty car with the 340 c.i.d. engine
the of Dart is pretty cute tho
The problem was wasting time on engines that did not work.
gta learned me that the recoil from a gun actually HELPS to fly. it just has to be mounted backwards.
Excelent very interesting story
I wonder how the DH Mosquito fared up against the P-38. Certainly would have been insane if they managed to use them in the pacific theater for the Doolittle raid.
Lockheed: _Well,,, we're_ waiting!
Continental: 🫣
Eh saying the P-38 had “1000hp” is a huge stretch, the (by far) most-produced variant of the P-38 had 1,600hp. I know you said “later they had more” but… I don’t really know about the premise of any of these prototype engines being “TOO MUCH” - they simply didn’t work and weren’t ready, while the 1710 quickly began developing a better hp/weight and size ratio anyways.
I think what really happened is that the P-38 was so impressive right off the bat, and the 1710 became a pivotal US liquid-cooled engine, that they were both given funding to evolve rapidly into a platform that QUICKLY encroached on the performance of the XP-49. You had a smaller/lighter (and cheaper) plane with a well-known engine and similar training/maintenance in the P-38L that was almost as good as an “experiment”. That makes for a VERY tough sales pitch.
I probably should have waited the last 2 min before writing this, as I guess this was basically your summary at the very end 🙈. Buuut… kinda took a convoluted path to get there lol. I don’t think many people started this video thinking the Lightning was ever a dog of a plane with 1000hp engines lol.
Happy Chrismukkah!!!
The failure of the experimental engines always begs the question, why didn't they use the Merlin/Packard?
The answer to that may be two fold: * when the Packards became available, these were already assigned in high numbers for the P-51. * since the P-38 had excellent turbo superchargers to feed the Allisons, not much more would to be gained with the Packards.
@@charlesrousseau6837 Packard started building 20-series Merlins first - single stage, 2 speed. They were fitted to the P-40F and P-40L, and the bulk exported to the UK.
The turbocharged Allison, with proper maintenance, rigging, and fuel, is lighter, smaller, more powerful, and more reliable than the Merlin. And more fuel efficient.
The F series V-1710 Allison was capable of 3400 RPM, at 80" of manifold pressure, for an output of 2,000 HP.
The USAAF intentionally down rated the Allison. They were however rigged in the field for maximum output when 150 octane fuel was available.
The G series was available in mid 1944, but the USAAF decided against buying it. It was even more powerful.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 They were capable of 2,000hp at the end of the war.
As was the Merlin, which coudl deliver 2,000hp at 81 inHg MAP.
Ltae model E and F series and G series engines were rated for 3,200rpm. Maybe some G series were capable of 3,400rpm.
A single stage, single speed V-1710 is slightly lighter than a single stage, single speed Merlin, maybe 45kg (100lb) lighter than a single stage, two speed Merlin.
In P-38s prior to the P-38J, the inetrcooler was installed in the leading edge of the wing. This restricted the power that could be made, even when improved versions of the V-1710 were installed.
Including the weight of the turbocharger and associated piping, the V-1710 was similar in weight to the 2 stage Merlins, but the weight of those varied quite a bit depending on accessories fitted.
The turbocharged V-1710 was indeed more fuel efficient than the Merlin. That is partly due to the advantage of turbocharging, and also that early versions of the engine used a higher compression ratio.
The V-1710 had a smaller frontal area than the Merlin, largely because of using downdraft carburettor, rather than the Merlin's updraft carburettor. However, the V-1710 was longer than the equivalent Merlin, and when coupled with the turbocharger took up a lot more space than a 2 stage Merlin.
Prior to the war, US engines did not have a combat or war emergency rating. This was introduced in 1941 or 1942, so numbers prior to that may not be directly comparable.
@@waynec3563 Thank you. I think I must have been referring to the dual stage Packard.
The P-38 already had problems with control due to compression. Adding a bunch more horsepower so it could fly farther into compression would only create more trouble.
Power to weight is the correct metric. Power alone doesn't say enough, and neither does weight alone. Assuming reliability is unaffected.
Anyone who has piloted an underpowered aircraft knows overpowered is not the problem that underpowered is.
I’m surprised that the Merlin engine that was used in the P 51 was not considered for the P 38. The P 51 initially used the Allison engine. And then upgraded to the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
They were considered. Lockheed drew up the modifications required to re-engine the aircraft. The Merlin reduced the climb performance of the aircraft but elevated top speed. The only real advantage was reliability when using the gas available in the ETO. It didn’t matter. It is quite possible the British Government refused to allow the engine be mounted on a Lockheed product. The British cancelled their order for “castrated Lightnings.” Castrated meant the order was for lightnings without Turbosuperchargers or contra-rotating propellers. Lockheed was NOT happy with the decision thinking they delivered what the British had asked for, against their advice, and the British should honor the deal. Lockheed went to great lengths to enforce the contract, but it was of no avail. Allegedly, the British were rather perturbed at Lockheed. Mind you though, this is the assertion of one historian. It has never been established this is true by others.
I smiled when I heard the RRR reference :)
The XP49 was waiting for engines, and waiting and waiting. The RAF had similar issues with some of their aircraft. Overcoming engine torque? The F8F Bearcat seemed to have had a workaround.
It took years for Allison to use a reduction gear that worked, well more than occasionally.
Why continue the XP49 when the XP 80 was coming. Also a Lockheed product.
Wonder if they substituted a pair of RR Griffons? Or would they be too big?
Could probably have been made to fit, but there is the issue of availability - only ~6,000 Griffons were built.
I am not sure if there were plans to build the Griffon in the US, but if there were, production engines woudln't come off the line until very late in the war.
If the I-1430s actually developed 1,600hp, or they had sustitude V-1710s of 1,400hp-1,600hp the XP-49 may have improved upon the P-38's performance.
Why the photo of the F4 Corsair at 11:03 ??
The F4 is an example of an aircraft that required delicate handling because the engine had so much power. If the aircraft in this video made it into production, it may have also had issues that were difficult to handle because the engines had so much power relative to its airframe.
Today I Learned the term, "Happy Christmannuka".
That is something.
3:36 also well after the Fokker G-1 has matured well into a nearly perfect twin engine 'hunter/cruiser' type fighter. The type was built in limited numbers from 1936 onwards and because of WW2 it's production and development halted but it had some serious influence on designs like this, as you'll see in it's specs and features.
Funnily enough the Fokker G-1 was a dead end and would have not been useful after 41' as a frontline unit except for maybe Indonesia for exactly the same reasons as why this airplane never got anywhere
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
PS it was the first plane to bomb Germany in WW2.
Bellanca the C does not have a S sound it should sound like /K/
Late model P-38s were superior to the P-49.
Kelly Johnson had a big laugh over that
Sweep the wings back on a p51 that would have been an awsome looking plane
Power to me is engines, guns are firepower.
It's pronounced "Bell-anka". My Dad used to own one (not the fighter prototype, but one of their civilian light aircraft).
On the "single engine fighter with a 75mm cannon", the Soviets fooled around with mounting 76.2mm recoilless weapons on I-16 fighters (Designated as the I-Z). The test pilots claimed they were "absolutely terrifying to fly and fire" and the program was cancelled.
So did the Germans. The recoil nearly shattered the airframe!
Early in WW2 ( before the Americans woke up ) the British fitted very reliable .303 machine guns to their fighters because they had perfected the .303 guns and tons of ammo already made, and for inexperienced pilots the more rounds you could give the pilot to shoot and the more lead in the air over a wider area the more likely they were to hit something, so that was a good strategy... Later on aircraft like Beaufighter and Mossie and other aircraft designed to hit bombers and ground targets got cannon. Remember the Brits had already degraded Lufwaffe by the time the Yanks turned up...
That's absolutely laughable, everything about that post is laughable.
By WW2 the .303 was no more than a deer hunting cartridge and had no business being on aircraft, it's exactly why RAF bombers couldn't defend themselves and had to switch to night bombing, the German fighter pilots would engage them at 700 yards with their cannons and simply break away at unscathed at the 400 yard maximum effective range of the .303's, the RAF's daylight losses made the 8th Air Force's Black Thursday raid on Schweinfurt look like a joke, there were RAF daylight mission's that had 70% losses because they couldn't defend themselves with those .303 guns.
You can put as many .303's as you want in the wings of a fighter that doesn't increase their range, what saved the RAF during the Battle of Britain was the fact that German fighters only had about 10 minutes over England then they had to head back or they'd run out of fuel, the RAF knew full well by the end of the Battle of Britain that the .303 was woefully inadequate in fighters and is why they poured all their resources into getting cannons working right in fighters, with those .303's the fighter pilots had to close on a target until it filled their windscreen to have any effect.
And the Luftwaffe was hardly "degraded" by the time the USAAF showed up, you've been listening to beer muscles talking down at the pub, they still had all their bases on the French coast that would launch raids and slap the RAF around over England when the 8th came over, their first order of business after getting there was driving those Luftwaffe bases inland, that was the USAAF that did that, not the RAF, the Luftwaffe didn't even bother moving any of those ridiculously high scoring aces from the east to the west over the RAF, doing that was their response to the 8th Air Force getting there, and guess who bagged most of those high scoring aces that were moved there from the east, 8th Air Force fighter pilots is who, Gunther Rall, 3rd highest scoring ace of all time with over 275 kills, moved west and after just 2 more got shot down by P47's of the 56th Fighter Group, P47 pilot Robert S Johnson of the 56th Fighter Group's 5th kill that made him an ace was a German pilot moved west that had over 200 kills, like all the rest of them with those ridiculous scores after getting moved to the west they were lucky to get one or two before the fighter pilots of the USAAF made quick work of them.
"Degraded" what a joke, the Luftwaffe was at its height from experience in the Spanish Civil War and honing its skills shooting down the RAF when the USAAF showed up in Europe, and went to work on them.
@@dukecraig2402 British bombers flew at night, and even Yanks regretted their daylight bombing because of huge losses... They failed to listen to RAF Bomber command, but then that Yanks knew it all, the Germans had no respect for American soldiers and the yanks never realised how tough the Germans were.... The RAF had destroyed so many German aircraft by the end of BoB that the Germans knew they could never muster the air cover to invade UK, they had to switch to night bombing and even that got risky after British developed cavity magnetron to build powerful lightweight very short wave radar for aircraft. It is easy for the Yanks to criticise because they arrived late as usual and had more time to prepare, and their factories were not getting bombed. Even after D Day the Americans had the 'soft route' going south and west from beaches when majority of German armour and troops were to the east, where the Brits and Canadians had to go that is why yanks never saw a Tiger tank or any of the best German troops because the south and west of France was a 'soft posting' for Germans. Do not believe the Hollywood version of WW2 ....
@@dukecraig2402 The Spanish Civil war ended in 1939 just as WW2 proper started in Europe, The yanks did not join in till two years after war started, by which time the RAF had fought and won battle of Britain against those 'Spanish civil war honed Lufwaffe pilots'. The attrition of Luftwaffe best pilots was done by the RAF, then the Yanks turned up and claimed victory - Hollywood style.
@chrissmith2114
Once again, nonsense, the Luftwaffe still occupied all its airbases along the French coast and hadn't even moved any pilots over from the east before the USAAF showed up, because they were slapping the RAF around at will and ran the skies over Europe.
Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul Bowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton PaulBowl-ton Paul, repeat after me, Bowl-ton Paul
If for this, I strongly believe the XP-50 was the better option by far.
A smaller and lighter airframe with two smaller engines that, while underpowered on their own, made good power combined. Small airframe with small engines = cheaper.
And if you thing about it, it wouldn't have been hard to make a R-1830 equipped variant with more power later on, if the 1820 wasnt enough to keep up.
The .50 cal was more than adequate and had as much armor piercing power as the 20mm. Our 20 mm was not debugged in W2. Stupid.
P-38 pilots were known to remove them, as four .50 focused in the nose would wreck anything quickly.
Why show a Spitfire in American markings with 2*20mm cannon , whilst trying to illustrate an 8*303 mg armed Spitfire .