The P-38 Upgrade Ruined By Government Interference: Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2023
- In this video, we talk about the Lockheed XP-58 "Chain Lightning", a prototype designed by Lockheed that would have served as an upgrade to Lockheed's own P-38 Lightning. We talk about the reason why the design came about (hint: it was money) and how the design went through an insane run of design alterations over the span of about 4 years, largely initiated by the government and/or military higher-ups. We then conclude with the inevitable failure of the XP-58 and the role that government interference played in that failure.
My cousin flew P-38s reconnaissance during WW2 in Europe. He told me his only armament was a 45 pistol, leaving room for high resolution film cameras and made light enough to outfly anything the Germans were flying. He had some great stories.
I worked in a man's house 13 years ago he flew reconnaissance p-38's in WWII he gave me a copy of his book' Thirty seconds over Berlin' and a diecast p38 model his name was Tom Gordon
There's a book out there about reconnaissance planes and pilots called, "Unarmed and Unafraid." which I am sure that last part was a considerable exaggeration, no matter how high they could fly.
@@johnwilson1094 to be sure I couldn't imagine going into that arena unarmed even though we had air superiority
To be absolutely honest, this project was never an "upgrade" to the P-38.
However, the War Production Board did absolutely interfere with nearly every single upgrade for the P-38.
In 1941-42, Hap Arnold, general of the Army Air Corps, practically forced NACA (the predecessor to NASA) to cooperate with Lockheed to study the causes of compressibility that affected the P-38 in dives. NACA did actually develop modifications for the center wing section. However, the War Production Board would not allow Lockheed to halt production to introduce the new wing modifications. Only some detail changes to the radius at the wing root were allowed.
In 1943, Lockheed already had both dive flaps AND hydraulic boosted ailerons, to ameliorate the dive problems, and to enhance the roll rate. Again, the War Production Board stopped Lockheed from halting production to install them until one year later.
Also in 1943, Lockheed, Allison, and Hamilton Standard had combined to produce the P-38K. This model had an astounding 1850HP per engine. It also had 13'-6" Hamilton Standard hydrostatic high activity paddle props. Every aspect of performance, even range, was improved. Even reliability improved, as the hydrostatic props didn't need electricity, and reduced the load on the electrical system.
So, in April of 1943, Lockheed could have produced a P-38 with a dramatically improved roll rate, increased dive performance and safety, 20% greater range, a 5,000 feet per minute climb rate, a 40,000 foot operating ceiling, a 450MPH top speed, and better acceleration (the P-38 already had the best acceleration rate and the best rate of climb).
However, the War Production Board again refused to allow Lockheed to halt production for two weeks to introduce a fighter that would be unmatched by anything short of a jet.
For the entire duration of the war, the War Production Board forced Lockheed to devote half of the Burbank production capacity to production of B-17 bombers. Instead of producing twice as many P-38 fighters, and improving them, to protect bombers and crews.
That is the actual tragedy caused by the government interfering with Lockheed.
Bomber losses could have been reduced by more than half, as far back as 1942. And every bomber lost cost more than 2 of the P-38 fighters, and cost a ten man crew as well.
The United States Army Air Corps should have never flown a single bomber mission over Europe, from 1942 on, without a full compliment of escort fighters. However, due to the 8th AF command staff, and the War Production Board, they hurled thousands of men and planes into the Luftwaffe meat grinder, for absolutely no reason.
The K-Variant was a huge missed opportunity. That the Lightning's stable mates (P51 and P47) both went on to get paddle props but the Lightning itself soldiered on to the end of the war without them. NACA's refusal to allow high speed tunnel testing also killed many pilots.
So true
The issue was the P-38s lack of pilot comfort in the ETO. The lightning suffered from insufficient heat to keep the pilot warm. One of those improvements was a powder blue electrically heated flight suit ( which the pilots strongly disliked). Its other problem was its range. It had enough fuel with drop tanks to make it as far as Berlin. As the USAAF progressed farther into Germany B-17s had to again risk no escort. When NAA designed the A-36 Apache someone in England decided to test a Merlin 61 in it ( the A-36 originally had a non boosted Allison V-1710 I think) the Merlin engine combined with the Laminar flow wing produced a soon to be legend. Once the mustang took over escort duties and we established a foothold in Germany the P-38 and P-47s found themselves doing tactical fighter bomber operations. They were well suited for it with the P-47 establishing itself as the preferred mud mover in the ETO. The P-38 however was not done, in the PTO the aircraft found its niche. Its 2 engines provided unparalleled reliability for pilots flying over large spans of ocean and its longer range was ideally suited for the type of combat over the PTO. The P-38 still gets to claim 3 honors. It was flown by 2 of the USAAFs highest scoring aces ( Major Tommy McGuire “ Pudgy IV” with 38 aerial victories and Major Richard Bong “ Madge” who claimed 40) it’s also the fighter that killed Adm Yamamoto. The lightning was not a dog fighter it was a perfect boom and zoom attacker. While in simulation combat I’m a Jug driver first ( P-47 was my first love). In my hands and keeping in mind how to fly it the P-38 can dish it out, and having that second engine improves your odds of coming home
Thank you for the technical data, most sources don't go into those details. I was aware of it's dive problems but just assumed that the pilots adjusted their technique. I strongly agree with your view on the insanity of unescorted daytime bombing raids. What did they expect would happen?
@@ZairAttredes Well, they assumed that the bombers could fly above enemy fighters with their turbocharged engines. And anything that could reach them at altitude wouldn't be able to take on a "flying fortress" with so many guns. It simply didn't work out that way. The added guns and blisters all over the bombers also made them much slower and easier hunt down. If we look at the mosquito, it was fast enough that it didn't need a tail gunner. The Lockheed Constellation was among the fastest aircraft in the world before the start of the war, so it's possible that 4-engine bombers could have been just as fast.
It's refreshing to hear how many designs failed simply from governments unable to make up their mind or pushing for fantasy designs the current technology couldn't realize.
After 1940, the Air Force was throwing money at tons of half baked ideas. Because they could.
The reality is that in any number of defense related businesses, the government will throw money at people, in order to keep airplane engineers working on airplanes, not selling vacuum cleaners.
Now all we need to do is figure out what airplane or concept the air force was buying with the billion dollar budget overruns on the F-35 program.
Constant changes in requirements is wasteful & inefficient, no matter that the project is.
Still going on today when government gets involved.
Requirements creep is almost always a project killer.
No drop tanks in Europe. The British had to make those mods.
I find it hard to believe the government would be responsible for any of this indecision and waste of funds.
I share your disbelief😂
it was bad design from the start but Americans wanted to build their own planes and so this is what happened with all the problems of catching up to European designs it caused
Why does that surprise you look at what our government does with money now it wasted constantly I mean they waived more now than they did then
@@joeconnolly89the P-38 was a dam good design and if the united states government AKA Army Air corps could have made up their mind what they wanted this could have been a good design as well.
The original P-38 was designed by Kelly Johnson .
I'm pretty sure he has forgotten more about aviation and aircraft design then pretty much anybody walk in the face of Earth even knows
@@robertgutheridge9672 "the P-38 was a dam good design"
No, it wasn't. The original design requirement was written up as it was to bypass the idiocies in the procurement system, meaning that it came about rather randomly. The Airacobra was designed for the single engine version of the requirement...
The original armament was NOT good. A 23mm, 2 .50s and 2 .30s. All with different ballistics. The cannon was then switched to the inferior 37mm M4 which was even worse in everything except for single shell damage capability.
But even the next switch, to the 20mm, the cannon had to be mounted pointing upwards compared to the MGs, to make up for the different ballistics. And this cannon was still a clear improvement on that issue.
And while the Allison engine was a very good fit for the plane, they started out at a paltry 1000HP. Which really was NOT enough.
The initial prototype cost 5 times more than Lockheed had been given to build it for...
I could keep going with all the things that needed to be done to turn it into a decent plane, but the most important was the mach limit of the plane, and its tendency to freeze into a deathdive if you sped up too much while diving. This issue was also never completely solved.
And it took 4 years to make it an ok aircraft, and another 2-3 to make it a good one.
I was in the Air Force for 20 years and THE GOVERNMENT can ruin anything. The old saying that " An elephant is a mouse built to government specification" is always so true.
I always thought that the Northrop P-61 “Black Widow” was developed as a larger version of the P-38 “Lightning”, but it actually went into production and was deployed during WW II, Apparently, government interference didn’t disrupt it’s development. Of course it was deployed as a reconnaissance aircraft and also as a night fighter, however it is very similarly configured as the P-58, and it also very similar in size as the P-58 as well. Perhaps the government had both companies involved in similar projects simultaneously, but the P-61 actually survived through the process.
Thank you for posting these videos!
Please have an excellent and awesome day!
☀️✨✈️
Nice history lesson…well done!👍👍 the one that the government meddled the most with was the first flying wing….a few senators and their greed set back aviation 30 years….
If I had the 12 million it would cost, I’d love to build a P-38 with Griffon engines and those wicked contra rotating propellers.
It probably still wouldn’t match a cut down and hyper boosted P-51, but you wouldn’t be able to take your eyes off it.
Actually I would opt to fit it with the highest horsepower packard built Merlins I could get them up the boost on the turbos. With some added nitros oxide and those engines pushed to the max ( and with the merlin’s supercharger geared for max power) I’m betting I could give a hyper boosted P-51 a real serious run for its money. I even had a name for this racing creation “ Mad Power”
God damn. I’m wondering how on earth so many drastic revisions would be pushed on this design without Lockheed responding with “Okay, we’ll take all prior requests into the design, but we respectfully request that further alteration be withheld so we can get the damned thing out.”
There come a time in all aircraft programs to shoot the engineers and go into production....an old Lockheed saying.
There's an old saying perfectly applicable here: "It's time to kill all the 'engineers' and begin production!" 😏
Honestly thought this project was going to evolve into a design with b29 engines with cockpits behind the engine in the nacelles. With no center fuselage just a quad 37mm gun pod in it's place. Based on the insane narrative.
Engine choices failing to live up to expectations or being cancelled seems to have been a very common occurrence during the war years. It would be interesting to hear more about some of the almost engines mentioned in this video, to see how close they were to achieving their promise.
It's still the same today it's why so many airliners are designed with several engine options just in case.
US Goverment: I have altered the deal. Pray I dont alter it any further.
Ride The Lightning was absolutely their best album
Hardwired did a real good job of sounding like the rtl album
I bounce back and forth between Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets... can't go wrong with either one
I'm with Pantera on this one - Metallica are the best full stop.
I've always loved the P-38. While the P-58 seems to have been complete dead-end from the start, I wish they would've pursued a naval version. That kitbashed model floating around the internet of a P-38 with radials (aka "Trident") always intrigued me.
If the USN actually wanted to employ a twin, they already had the carrier-based (though not used) F7F Tigercat; that would have been a really tough one to beat (plus the navy loves their radials.)
Reminds me of the game Heroes of the Pacific where you not only launch from a carrier in a P-38, but land on one too, and from the front of the carrier to boot!
Later in the game you even land a stolen ME-262 on the carrier, again from the front!
@@EstorilEm The F7F was one hell of a piston engine fighter, it was probably the best of the best when they developed it. In combat simulator runs I’ve found the Tigercat is a very capable plane and in the right situations can show it’s teeth to a MiG-15 and can do sone damage
never forget the p-38's contribution to auto design in the form of the original cadillac tailfins.
Maybe the delays and indecision were for the best. The P-38 was a noteworthy exception to a rule often proven in WWII combat -- multi-engine heavy fighters were generally not worth the investment except as night fighters opposing heavy bombers like the Lancaster. In the mid-1930s, Hermann Göring became sold on the idea of the "destroyer", a heavy fighter with lots of firepower up front and a defensive gunner in the rear, resulting in the Me-110. In the Battle of Britain, the Me-110 was worthless as a bomber escort and meat on the table in the interdiction role. It couldn't even survive over SE England without its own fighter escort. As a night fighter, a role it wasn't designed for, it was quite successful, especially after the adoption of the Schräge Musik upward-firing gun system. The "improved" Zerströrer, the Me-210 with its remote firing defensive barbettes was an unmitigated aerodynamic disaster, leaving the obsolescent Me-110 to soldier on until the re-engineered version, the Me-410 came online, but that aircraft was hardly superior to the 110 -- both were still highly vulnerable to Allied escort fighters but effective at night against Lancs and Sterlings which didn't require high speed to intercept. For all the hoo-haw, the Germans would have been better served without developing a successor to the flawed destroyer concept.
The Me-262 was another exception to the rule, but its only real advantage was blistering speed. A turning fight with a P-51 or Spitfire was a fool's errand. If the Germans had possessed an axial flow turbojet with about 1.7x the output of the JUMO 004 with similar reliability, they could have had an even more superior day fighter with one centerline engine. The Do-335 with its all-centerline twin-engine layout might have been a real scourage to the Mustangs, Thunderbolts, and Typhoons laying waste to trains and road convoys. But that plane never completed its development phase.
The Japanese Army had a long-range recon plane known as the Mitsubishi Ki-46 (Dinah to the Allies). It was more than adequate for the task it was designed for, but the IJA tried to modify it into their answer to the Me-110 without notable success. However, Japan had too few engines for the war effort they contracted for at Pearl Harbor, and so their multi-engine fighter projects generally stayed on the drawing board and out of the factories.
Finally, we have America's other twin-engine fighter, the Gruman F7F. From the testimony of test pilots and postwar air racers and enthusiasts, the Tigercat would have been a spectacular long-ranger interceptor, the role the P-38 was designed for but rarely flew. Unfortunately, by the time the F7F was ready that fleet defense role was already moot and jet power was on the way. The Tigercat never had a chance to shine.
The lightening didn’t really dogfight. You pulled the boom and zoom and used your superior speed to accept or refuse combat. And the P-38 did pull off the ultimate interception in the PTO. It killed Adm Yamamoto, in the PTO the P-38 became the USAAFs ace maker and both of the PTO USAAF aces were lightning pilots
Considering it's configuration, I'm surprised that it was never put up as a competitor to the P-61 Black Widow as a night fighter. (Cannon in the belly, radar in the nose.)
The P-61 was a FAR superior design. No comparison. In fact, in one on one combat testing the P-61 demolished the P-38 in fighter configuration. do some research before shooting off your mouth.
@@AmericasChoice .You're funny accusing another of shooting their mouth off for a perceived insult upon the P61,
whilst completely missing what Reynard meant, even though the XP58 predates the XP61, certainly aspects within the bureaucracies of Airfrorce procurement & aero-industies from the XP58's cascade of conflicting ideas, helped towards smoothing off an easier process for the 61, if only from the vague bureaucratic learning of the institutions, during the XP58 fiasco absorbing many persons own honest, war crazed ideas, so the Northrop could escape the cowturds the 58 faced.
.
So, infact, it is you 'muricasChoice, shooting his mouth off.
..what's wrong, did you run out of beer & nuts or medication?
..or that you need your kicks by 'trolling the libs' on youtube or something ??
Reynard never insulted the 61 nor infered it was crap or less than it is or was, but somehow you thought they did.
First video of yours ive seen. Just popped into my recommendations today. Enjoyed it, and the sarcasm is awesome! Youve got yourself a new subscriber.
A beautiful plane! Thank you for the excellent overview! I am reminded of the Howard Hughes twin-engine counter-rotating prop plane that he crached.
Didn't just enjoy the video! I loved it! Thanks for the research and effort you put into this interesting and, for me, highly educational video! I love learning about new one-offs, concepts and planes that didn't quite make it into the mainstream. There were so many awesome piston powered machines. I kinda wish that era in technology has stuck around a little longer but that's the way of things. I also wish they would have saved a few more from the scrap heap. Hearing about the scrapping of WW2 planes makes me so sad. If they knew how much they were going to be worth these days, I bet they would have held onto them a little longer.
Lessons were learned so that future military projects would be handled more efficiently by the government, like the Bradley Infantry Vehicle.
(cue "The Pentagon Wars" music ^^)
Damn I enjoy your uploads!!!
This story reminds me of the movie pentagon wars on HBO. Great video, thanks.
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"......RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this known as the Black Widow? My Aunt who worked at Douglas Aircraft in WW2 said once that the only airplane she was sure she could recognize as it flew over was the P-38, but then the P-58 came out and she wasn't sure anymore.
I kept on expecting this design to evolve into the P-61 Black Widow as the video went on. The P-58 really reminded me of it, especially when they added the turret to the top of the aircraft.
The UK wasn't a P-38 user - the RAF was sent three Model 322s, without turbochargers or handed engines, rejected them and cancelled their order!
And why they asked for P-38s configured that way would seem to confound all reasonable thought.
The British received P-38s without turbochargers and without reverse rotating propellers because that's what they ordered. They specified that they wanted them to use the same engines that the British P-40s used, for logistical purposes. It shouldn't have come as any surprise to them that the planes didn't perform like it was originally designed.
The Mosquito did everything that Chain Lightning was supposed to. It was a very fast two seat, twin engine, fighter/bomber that could be rapidly adapted for all sorts of weird roles (the 75mm cannon sounds like them trying to copy the Tsetse variant of the Mosquito, a very specialized, difficult to use but quite effective anti-submarine weapon). It was also quite cheap to make and could be made in all sorts of facilities, not just specialist aviation factories.
Note that the official view of the Mosquito that "it would never work". Like many outstanding designs it was effectively a bootleg project.
The U.S. spec P-38 was a total dog in high altitude Northern Europe so the USAAF wasn't any smarter.
The information I have is that, at the time of the order by the British Purchasing Commission, the US government was imposing an embargo on any exports of the GE turbocharger and presented the Model 322 as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
Through the P-40 the RAF were well aware of the shortcomings of the single-stage Allison V-1710 at altitude, so I find it hard to believe they'd demand an engine they knew to be unsuitable for combat in the European theatre of operations. This might explain why they wanted an initial delivery of just three Model 322s for evaluation purposes.
Great content 👍🏼 Please keep it up!
I love all your videos and I was already a subscriber, but you got a subscriber for Life by mentioning for whom the Bell tolls
About the handling aspect, it's surprisingly good for its size. Though don't quote me on that as I remember watching a clip of it (including the F7F tigercat) in RUclips
Great video! Thanks sincerely!
Without those fancy armament requirements and without those stupid turrets, this aircraft could easily have reached (and exceeded) the 450 mph specification as early as in 1942. What a turning point it could have been!
There were a few problems (such as torching from the turbos and being very maintenance intensive) so it appears it would have never have been sorted and gone into production before the war ended. Existing designs were adaptable and coped until the end anyway with most becoming obsolete, outside some specific roles, shortly after the war ended.
Should have gone with the P&W engines! NOTHING would have touched it!
@@atomicwedgie8176 I hear you, but Radials would have changed the aerodynamics drastically. Even when they slapped on Packard-Merlins on it it was a disappointment.
How dare you Riccardo turrets are awesome. Every plane should strive to be a YB-40
The P-38 was a very good early war fighter especially at low level but its mach limitations meant that it wouldn't matter what engine you put in, its high level performance was limited. It would certainly have made a good low level-high speed attack plane with the more resilient radial engines but all the bulges on the enlarged body made it a dead end. A straight single seat p38 with powerful radials and more firepower would bave been devastating.
Ok, just bc another country bought or tried one or two out doesn’t mean it was operated by them. The US was the only country who used them in a meaningful manner and mainly in the Pacific bc it was a disappointment in the European theatre
That wasn't the plane but the uses to which it was put. The aerodynamics of the design meant it wouldn't manouvre well at high altitude when closer to the speed of sound. So its use as a high altitude escort fighter was inappropriate.
11:56 those Mountain peaks in the background look like Mt Baldy (San Antonio) on the left and Cucamonga Peak on the right . The Photo is likely near March Airforce Base , Riverside California .
Reminds me of the DeHavilland DH-9 which some called "a DH-4 that has been officially interfered with."
It seems like the *obvious* way to make an "improved P-38 Lightning" would've been to just take the same basic airframe, give whatever are the most powerful engines available that will fit in that airframe, and give it an armament of 4 20mm cannons.
look like a mini p61 black widow
Not that much mini-er.
@@obsidianjane4413 yah true tht
Interfering is all the government knows how to do.
This airplane must have been the result of some bribe by Lockheed. We already had the extremely similar P-61 Black Widow which was a good airplane but wasn't found to be all that necessary by the time it went into service. The XP-58 should have been cancelled much sooner. The government's attitude seemed to be "We really need this airplane no matter what it's purpose is or whether it's any good at it. Just because we do".
The P61s were not "wasn't found to be all that necessary by the time it went into service." other than they weren't fighting waves of night bombers. During the war at least. Post war they served well into the 50s as primary interceptors for North America and Asia until the jets came of age.
@@obsidianjane4413 I didn't say the P-61 wasn't useful, I said it wasn't really necessary. We had them so we made use of them. But the A-26, suitably equipped, could have done what the P-61 did. It was designed primarily to carry the huge early radar sets, which by the time it went into service had been reduced in size to where a single engine fighter could carry one on a wing. We definitely didn't need the P-58. As for being the primary interceptor until the jets came of age, I think that was the P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang, not the P-61.
*They ruined the P-38 too with the mandatory use of their pre-bought superchargers they forced Kelly to use on its Allison engines. That's why the 38 never even came close to its potential and possibilities. In the PTO Bong and McGuire operated at or below 10,000 feet where the supercharger issue didn't matter and cleaned up. Bong coming in with 40 and McGuire with 38 air-to-air kills.*
The P-38 was the very first aircraft, I think, the military had that went over 400mph. They didn't know much about how to build fast planes when they built it, and we soon learned lessons they needed to apply. What it needed was AERODYNAMICS: flush rivets, fewer skin interruptions, a one-piece bubble canopy (also for better vision), laminar-flow wings. And keep the ENGINES but increase power with water/methanol injection.
Wow!. Talk about feature creep. I have been involved in processes like this and with meeting after meeting with the sales guys adding new features every couple months. We only started to make progress when the CEO took me aside as the senior design engineer and told me just make it like I damn well thought was best for the customers. But to get a prototype done before the next trade show. In a case like this, with the rapid promotion of people during the war that the project received a new manager for it in the Pentagon or wherever. And each now onted to make it their project and would order changes. Then ever 3-6 months, rinse and repeat. As a result, a total waste of time. Theu would have been better off to have taken a Beaufighter from the British and told the USAAF to try that. I imaging Kelly Johnson had a few words to say over this project.
REminds me of the movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
Really enjoyed the video, much useful information but there are a couple of points I'd like to raise. The Lightning in RAAF (Australian) service. They only ever used 3, that's right, 3, for photo reconnaissance. Now we get to the Lightning in RAF (British) service. The Brits (or pommies, as we call them here) were the ones who actually gave the aircraft the name Lightning, because they gave all their aircraft names, such as Demon, Hurricane, Typhoon, Fury, Tempest etc (anyway you already know this). But the reason the poms returned (yes, returned) their Lightnings and the reason there was a problem with sending them to Britain in the first place was not having to meet the demands of the USAAF. It was all about copyright fears, not for the aircraft itself but the turbochargers fitted. As you know, forced induction had been used in race cars during the 1930s, by Britain (Bentley) Germany (Mercedes Benz) and Italy (Maserati). These engines were supercharged, ie the equipment to provide the forced induction was driven by the engine. This system made its way into the various aircraft, Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane etc. Turbocharging is driven by the exhaust gases and is a system originating in the USA. The govt of the day was VERY protective (understandably) of this new system. To that end the only way the RAF would get Lightnings was if they were delivered minus the turbochargers. This made the Lightning, robbed of the ability to perform at higher altitudes, worse than useless. The RAF hated them (for that reason) and returned them. Similarly, when Australia designed its own fighter, the CA 12 and CA 13 Boomerang the only engine available was the Pratt and Whitney twin row wasp as fitted to Beaufort bombers being built in Australia at that time. It also could not perform at altitude. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation acquired a GE turbocharger which they fitted to a CA 13 and gave it the model number CA 14 and CA 14A (the 14A had a squared off tail). The fitting of this device gave the aircraft performance similar to a Mk 5 Spitfire. An application was made to the USA for a manufacturing license for this turbocharger. This application was refused and the US govt insisted that the GE turbocharger be returned. My source for for the Lightning info was a book by Kookaburra Publications (Australian, out of print) on the complete history of the Lightning, showing all variations and its creation and development. The Boomerang info comes from a book I once had but can't exactly remember the title. It was 50 years ago anyway. You might do a video on the Boomerang?
When I heard you say Australia as an operator I was like “Wait, what did he say”. Thought I’d better look it up as I hadn’t heard about Lightnings in RAAF service. I soon found out why. 3 airframes on charge with the RAAF (A55-1, -2 and -3) with about 4 others loaned by the 5 th Air Force over time. Used for PR among other things, but each for only less than 18 months, most lest than 12 months.
So maybe listing the Lightning as a success, which it certainly was, because of operators like Australia could be stretching things a little. 🤓
"Hint it was money" The military made and destroyed these companies with the stroke of a pen. One might argue that the chain lighting was very successful. as It allowed Lockheed to sell the P38 abroad. I speculate that by the time the US entered the war Lockheed may have lost interest in the plane which also contributed to the staffing of 6.
Totally agree on the favourite lightning part brother 🤘
Man its like top of my list of favorite planes of WW2.
Full belly laugh 3 seconds in, you're a beauty dude 🤘🤣🎶💙
I'd always wondered how well the air frame would have faired if fitted with early jet engines. I mean, you obviously can't just slap jets on a plane designed for propeller but might be interesting to see how well it would have performed.
It is odd to look at especially since through almost all of it, it basically became a p61 black widow towards the end
Its like a distant Cousin to the Black Widow crossed with a Beaufort ,
In the computer game HEARTS OF IRON 4 the XP-58 is the third aircraft in the heavy fighter research tree. In my games I've built literally thousands and sent them to escort my flocks of B-29s. :D
Thank you for a sterling example of shifting priorities and Mission Creep. This is a problem with American military procurement. Add a coffee mill to that cavalry carbine! That armored personnel carrier must also mount a tank gun, an automatic 120mm mortar, take down aircraft, carry an entire platoon and allow a half-dozen machine guns to fire at one time. Oh, yes, that personnel carrier must be small and light enough for a light helicopter to carry, must be able to cross rivers and lakes, maintain road speeds of 60 miles per hour and have a range of 500 miles. The XP-58 never had a chance, starting out as a bomber escort for self-escorting bombers, then being shifted to interceptor missions, and being configured for ground attack as well. While the Army Air Force was at it, have their XP-58's tow a cargo glider and be able to carry a squad of paratroopers.
This story just proves how right Geoffrey De Havilland was to build the Mosquito without a rear turret as requested by the British Air Ministry. It was only saved by Air Marshal Freeman who pushed for it to be built as a high speed Photo reconnaissance aircraft. Only when they saw its performance would Bommer Command accept it as worth considering as a bomber.
The Lightning was also used extensively as a recon aircraft, under the f-5 designation.
The other Recon P-38 Variant was the F-4 Series.
it looks like a smaller p-61 black widow. I wonder if they tested the 75mm gun?
When did it snow in Burbank? [8:00]
This is a common story in aircraft development leading up to, and during WWII. They were just trying to push the basic P-38 airframe/platform as far as they could. Basically testing different components/armaments to see how they worked. They were never going to get to 450MPH on that old platform, no matter what they threw at it. Moreover, the whole concept of a twin-engined heavy fighter was not proving to be a combat worthy concept by 1942. However, this fiasco led to the P-61 which was in fact a great aircraft.
This did not lead to the P-61, because the P-61 was the only Allied fighter designed from the wheels up, as Night Fighter, and not a Heavy Fighter. The Photo Recon variant of the Black Widow is descended from the XP-61E Long Range Escort Fighter, and was initially designated as the F-15A Reporter, before it was redesignated as the RF-61.
@@johnosbourn4312 I never said it
"led to the P-61". I said they used data from these experiments with components/armaments in the P-61. I also never said it was ever "designed to be a heavy fighter". I was referring to the variants of the P-38, and heavy fighter in general. Try reading comprehension, and not skimming a comment...good grief.
The moral of the story is that, if you want to really screw up a project, get the government involved.
The P-38 would make an excellent airframe to bring back to production. The engines would be turboprops, which would make it fly quietly and fast, giving its strengths to the present trend of the US using single-engine turboprop crop dusters. Everyone can tell anyone else that two engines are safer than one, and a P-38 airframe with a pair of turboprops would be a dangerous aircraft, indeed. Merlins or Allisons would sound better, but would ruin any combat capability, because you can hear them start up a hundred miles away. Two turbojets firing up would sound like a Dash-8 in a civilian airport.
So why don't we use the airframe design? I'm sure with modern stuff, a '38 can be safe up to about 0,9 Mach.
I never could understand the thinking of the leadership back in WWII on several things. Especially in regards to the bomber campaign. From the start England found that unescorted heavy bombers were vulnerable to fighters in daylight raids. The US had that information long before it got involved in the war, the tail gun position was incorporated in the B-17 because the British found it to be a blind spot. The US still went with daylight bombing mainly because of the Norden bomb sight and the time it would take to retrain the crews for night bombing. Both countries tried to develop versions of the heavy and long range fighters with only a small amount of success.
But Germany was able to convert several of their Schnellbombers into multi roll aircraft that included use as fighters to attack Bombers. The Junkers JU-88 being one example.
Not that the US didn't try to come up with a concept of something like a Navel escort Destroyer of the sky and the heavy fighter program. But they all failed because they wanted more and over complicated what was needed. The B-17's converted to YB-40's and the one B-24 converted to the XB-41 are examples of that. The extra turrets, twin guns and the amount of ammunition they carried, made them so heavy they could only keep up with the Bombers to the target, but became a liability after the bombs were released, because they couldn't keep up with the Bombers that lightened their loads. So to protect the YB-40's the Bombers had to slow to the YB-40's airspeed and became very vulnerable to fighter attacks. They would have had better success if they stripped the turrets, armor from most of the aircraft and reduced the crew to 2 or 4. Then moved the .50 cal machine guns to the nose and have fighter pilots fly them and used them like fighters. To give it more speed they could have used the Allison V-1710-89 engines like Lockheed did on one B-17E, redesignated the XB-38. Or they could have used the Packard produced Merlin engines for that. The XB-38 would have done far better as an Escort Long Range Fighter with those engines, a crew of no more than 4 and 4 or 6 .50 cal M-2's in the nose, making it lighter and faster. But it would still suffer from maneuverability and other problems with a fighter.
But The US did produce a number of other aircraft that could have filled the roll of the heavy escort fighter already being produced that would have turned out better. The P-61 Black Widow could have filled this roll but it was never used in that roll. The B-25, the A-26 Invader, the B-26 Marauder, the A-20 Havoc all could have been quickly redesigned to a fast, long range heavy fighters. The B-26 flew like a fighter and if stripped of everything other than a crew of 2 or 4 and guns moved to the nose would have turned the B-26 into one of the best Escort Fighters. It probably could have been converted to a single seat fighter. But all of these mentioned Bombers or Attack aircraft could have easily been modified to Fighters and some would have had upgraded engines to make them faster and better. The A-20 Havoc and the A-26 Invader both had Fighter and Attack aircraft conversions. 60 of the A-20 Havoc's were converted to P-70 night fighters during WWII and all were in action by Sep 1942 and could have been used as escort fighters before the long range P-51's started escorting bombers. In fact the the P-70 had the more fuel and much longer range than the P-51.
Why these companies had to screw around building a completely new aircraft in stead of converting some of the best twin engine light Bombers or Attack aircraft that could have filled the roll they needed, shows a lack of seeing the obvious or it was from greed to get more money to develop a new aircraft.
Compressibility?
The P-58's greatest contribution was its successfully soaking up of a considerable amount of gov't meddling, which otherwise might have buggered other programs
Nope. The government meddled in the P-38 program and repeatedly stunted and handicapped development.
Because of government interference, the P-38 program was delayed, postponed, and some parts with massive performance increases were cancelled.
Excellent.
It appears like many of the design features are found in the P-61 (Black Widow).
If i remember correctly the R-2800-21s were the double wasp used in the P-47 and the B-29. Is that right? In that case I'm guessing the Govt told lockheed not to use those engines because they were spoken for? The P-47 being the most produced fighter of the war and the 29 being the most expensive project of the war. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm really not sure about this lol. Also, switching from an inline 12 to a radial seems like it would take a major redesign. Also, it seems like this was just a plane without a role to fill?
Just for grins, let's look at the numbers:
XP-58 - Empty Weight = 31000 pounds
Gross Weight = 39000+ pounds
P-61 - Empty weight = 23,500 pounds
Gross = 36,000 pounds
So a bigger, heavier airplane, with questionable engines. With pretty much the same numbers, performance wise.
Wow that's awesome thanks
And while all the drama was going on stone wall after stonewall, another twin boom design similar to the P38, the P61black widow, eventually came out and earned a name for itself.
So the govt decided to try new ideas by modifying a paper airplane and only spent $2 million, rather than putting all those ideas into actual new production planes to determine whether to build or scrap the ideas.
Sheer genius. Research done right. One final flying prototype to show the concept and keep it legal rather than 20 prototypes one for each new idea. A very small workforce to keep costs down and war production up.
The changeable nose for different gun configurations was even used on a different plane.
Engine and weapons system ideas could be developed and tested and scrapped without the need to build a new plane for them.
The more you talk about the changes. I thought you would say the government would go with the Northrop P-61. After all. That's what it was getting to look like. Great plane in WW 2 🤨👍
FWIU only tiny numbers of P38s were used by any allies, as the US Govt refused to permit exports without turbochargers & potential customers weren’t impressed by these coddled ‘de tuned’ models.
Remove ‘out’ from ‘without’ above.
Heh... The Pentagon Wars should really have been about the XP-58, rather than the Bradley, as this actually happened. It could even end with the very tired and worn down chief designer crying with relief when the plane gets put aside and finally 'forgotten'.
And the foreign buyers never saw their upgraded P-38, when they needed them.
Reality: while the Lightning did well in the Pacific, it was hated by the 8th AF, which wanted high altitude fighters that would "jump" Luftwaffe aircraft attacking our bombers. A roll for which the Lightning wasn't well suited until after compressibility and turbocharger problems were straightened out, later in the war.
Also, it would seem that the Lightning could be used for low level, long range attack missions, and the 12th AF tried this once, loading out a squadron of Lightnings with as much ordnance as they could carry, they attacked some target in Romania and suffered heavy loses at the hands of the Romanian air force, which caught them all "low and slow". The unimaginative dopes in the 12th AF never tried innovating their tactics at all, they just said "well, let's just use P-38s for CAP from now on... preferably far from the enemy". Derp!
Good airframe that was underutilized by forces in Europe.
If they would have used the cannon for ground attack missions, it might actually have been a pretty effective aircraft for attacking trains, armor and ships.
This program along with various other fighter projects such as the XP-55 were let down by the failure of their proposed engines.
...also the P-38 photo resonance version...😊
Chain Lightning, sounds like a song name from a Grease play.
Thanks for a great video.
🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸
Two million dollars in WWII money -- even after eighty years of inflation, still a bargain compared to modern fighter development running into tens of billions...
I can just hear the Bradley Wars music . . .
No wonder Kelly Johnson hated the government-driven projects. In his view, Lockheed should've _dictated_ the government what they needed.
So... XP-58 faded to black...
Whose arm is that @ 1:58 behind F.D.R.? It doesn't really match up with anyone behind him... WTF? Not to mention that the Lockheed Headquarters looks like a flying saucer...
I've watched two videos so far on this channel. Not the worast youtube channel covering historic aviation that I have encountered, but not far from it.
Great!
I think this is an example of the old saying "A horse designed by a committee is a camel".
Seemed they wanted a p-61 black widow but couldn't get their act together...
This airplane was so dumb. The government wanted superior performance, yet they saddled what started as a fighter with a second crewman and a gun turret. The P-38 showed the right way to build a heavy fighter was with a single pilot, yet with the P-58 the Army seemed to follow the lead of underperforming German designs such as the Me 110, 210, and 410. The P-58 could have been an alternative to the P-61, but it was a dumb configuration for a day fighter.
The Douglas AD (A-1 Skyraider) was designed in 1944 and used data and lessons learned during the war that multi-crew fighters and similar type dive bombers were obsolete. Greater payloads and range could be realized by a single seat airplane. Even the P-61 had turrets removed.
Government interference ruining things, ya don't say... 😏
Since the government was the customer, don't you think they deserved some say?
nice info...but the soundtrack is crackling. Mr. Popcorn may know the kernel of info but my colonel told me to back down the volume.
The "Export" version???
" For the love of God just tell me what you want !!!!! AHHHHHHHH !! "🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Those involved in the P-58 program failed to identify that what they initially set out to build (in concept) was basically a deHavilland Mosquito in metal.
Another stupid remark.
Next up, the howard hughes upgrade version?
Aggreed
You forgot the Lightning was also a great photo recon plane.
Example of other Gov't stupidity was the selection of the F-4 over the F8U-3 Supercrusader. The Super Crusader had performance about on par with the later & undefeated F-15. The F8U-3 could also dogfight & win over a MiG 17. I wonder how many F-4 pilots would've came home alive if they were flying a Vought.. Good stuff, man.
Then our AirForces wanted the F-4 over the supercrusader because it (F-4) smoked like a bad forest fire…making it easier to see during combat and air shows. More smoke equals many more replacement orders….watched the thunderbirds in 1971 and the F-4 was being used then. It was and still is, my favorite for air shows. Loud and on fire! Sarcasm of course….never understood why they chose the F-4…..
Did Hermann work a second Job as a USAAF Consultant?
I'm glad you didnt say F-35 lightning ll