A Super Lightning?

[sjk.fly4ever]

During World War II, the Lockheed developed a long-range version of its famous fighter P-38 Lightning, however, due to technical problems the project was canceled. The link below provides a collection of interesting photos of the plane and a question: If the plane had entered service, have reached the success of the P-38? What do you think? Visit the link, see the photos and answer this question through a poll at the end of the post.


http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/lockheed-xp-58-chain-lightning.html



(http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/lockheed-xp-58-chain-lightning.html)Best Regards.

[lnuss]

Notice the lack of visibility to the rear -- that alone would be a serious problem in combat. And Lightnings were doing long range flight of over 2,000 miles in the Pacific -- read Fork Tailed Devil: The P-38 by Martin Caidin, an excellent book about the aircraft, more in depth than most.

[johnnyd]

Looks as if it might have been a "proof of concept" design for the P-61 "Black Widow".

[Bob Dingley]

If you look closely, photo #3 shows the props pitched the same as the P-38. Props counter rotate away from the centerline.
Years ago, I was doing hard time in a military hospital and I got a new cell mate, I mean room mate. He was a USAF Col. Somehow, the conversation always turned to airplanes. He flew P-38's in WW2, F-82's in Korea and B-58's in the cold war.

Among other things, he cleared up why the P-38 props rotated out ward and the F-82 rotated in ward (like a twin Comanche). It was simple. The P-38 was a dog fighter and a little instability was a good thing. The F-82 was designed for long hours aloft and so it handled like it was on rails. Even with one feathered.

My opinion is the Chain Lightning was intended to be a dog fighter. Note the rear station.

Bob

[rwanttaja]

According to several online sources, the Chain Lightning was designed to be a CONUS-defense high-altitude bomber killer. Specifically, to go after formations of bombers and blow them apart with bursts from an array of four 30 mm cannons. They even considered using a single 75 mm. The design work started in 1940; I'm guessing folks didn't believe the British would stop Germany and, eventually, the US would need to be able to take out large numbers of attacking bombers. I expect the assumption would be that the bombers would be unescorted, so the dogfighting was definitely off the table.

As the engine problems continued and more-modern aircraft supplanted it, the AAF examine it as a low-level attack aircraft. But, again, the US already had a good set of aircraft for that mission.

Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

Among other things, he cleared up why the P-38 props rotated out ward and the F-82 rotated in ward (like a twin Comanche). It was simple. The P-38 was a dog fighter and a little instability was a good thing.

Bob

According to Martin Caidin, the prototype had propellers that rotated inward, to eliminate having a critical engine. Later models had outward rotating propellers to eliminate problem with unsteady flow over the horizontal.


BJC

[Bob Dingley]

I've grown up leading a simple life. Enjoyed the Harold Krier/Charlie Hillard team and the Blue Angels. And I thought I'd seen everything until Lefty Gardner did an acro routine in the "Scatterbrained Kid" at San Marcos. Then he feathered #1 and did it all again.

Bob

[Kyle Boatright]

According to Martin Caidin, the prototype had propellers that rotated inward, to eliminate having a critical engine. Later models had outward rotating propellers to eliminate problem with unsteady flow over the horizontal.


BJC

Caidin was a great storyteller but his "History" books were a creative product I'll call "Faction" - lots of truth mixed in with lots of stuff that helped make the story better. But, the P-38 did start off with the props turning the other way, and Lockheed quickly swapped their direction of rotation. Here's a thread on the subject:

http://eaaforums.org/archive/index.php/t-324.html?

[Byron J. Covey]

Caidin was a great storyteller but his "History" books were a creative product I'll call "Faction" - lots of truth mixed in with lots of stuff that helped make the story better. But, the P-38 did start off with the props turning the other way, and Lockheed quickly swapped their direction of rotation. Here's a thread on the subject:

http://eaaforums.org/archive/index.php/t-324.html?

Nothing definitive in that thread, and nothing that I have seen anywhere, like a quote from Kelly Johnson, that is definitive.

What is your explaination for the propeller rotation direction?

Thanks,


BJC

[Kyle Boatright]

Nothing definitive in that thread, and nothing that I have seen anywhere, like a quote from Kelly Johnson, that is definitive.

What is your explaination for the propeller rotation direction?

Thanks,


BJC

Did you miss my post in that thread? It was as definitive of an answer as I've seen - tail buffeting problems on the first iteration caused Lockheed to reverse the rotation on all subsequent P-38's.

[Byron J. Covey]

Did you miss my post in that thread? It was as definitive of an answer as I've seen - tail buffeting problems on the first iteration caused Lockheed to reverse the rotation on all subsequent P-38's.

OK, thanks.

I took your response in post 8 to mean that you were saying that what Caidin wrote was incorrect, when, in fact, you agree with his assertion about propeller rotation.


BJC