PDA

View Full Version : Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Stolen design?



XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:32 PM
Go here for the full story: http://www.rareplanes.com/revw.htm

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:32 PM
Go here for the full story: http://www.rareplanes.com/revw.htm

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:52 PM
That thing looks more like a Fw-189 rather than a P-38.

Also, if the P-38 did take some concepts off this design, why didn't we hear about it? There are tons of airplanes that take design and concept off one another, is that really wrong?

If Clarence Johnson took this EXACT SAME DESIGN, and turned it into the P-38, wouldn't more similarities remain? As is it appears that the ONLY similarity is the twin boom structure. And there were plenty of other aircraft with twin booms.

I think this "Crusader" or whatever its called is real funky looking.

Anyways, interesting article SECUDUS, thanks for sharing! I did find it a bit biased and aggressive, but otherwise a good read.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:04 PM
Interesting article, probably an interesting book, but "that was my idea" is certainly nothing new. There are a couple things that one needs to keep in mind about the P-38.

First, there are only so many twin engined fighter configurations that can be made to work. The P-38 has a similar lay-out as the Fw-189...but they certainly aren't copies.

Second, the things that made the P-38 revolutionary wasn't just that it was a twin engined fighter. The aerodynamics of the XP-38 (somewhat reduced in later models...just look at how sleed the naccelles are on the XP-38) were astounding for the time. It's engines were fitted in extremely tight fiting cowlings...an amazing example of engineering. I know it doesn't sound like it but you just have to see it. The P-38 had a tri-cycle landing gear. It boasted a new cannon (Hispano, which nobody else was using yet...but would become the norm) in an new weapons config. It used counter-rotating propellers. A yoke insteadt of a stick (okay...it's not new, but it's not typical either)...

Third, the development of the P-38 from first idea to first sketch to first rivet is all well documented (see BODIE, The P-38 Lightning). Sure, somebody may have seen other twin engined aircraft...but I doubth they stole the idea...if there was one to be stolen.

Just my .02.


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:26 PM
Fokker G.1 was the primary influence on the P-38 development and shows many parallels in design.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:28 PM
Cragger wrote:
- Fokker G.1 was the primary influence on the P-38
- development and shows many parallels in design.
-
<img
- src="http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig
- .jpg">
-
- About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane.
- I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake."
- -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

Sure...I am sure there's a lot of "cross-pollination" of ideas within the industry...especially with how small it was int he early thirties.


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 08:40 PM
Yeah, I thought I would share...I think I might just get a copy of that book, looks like a interesting read. I turned that up through looking for comparisons between the P-38 and the Westland Whirlwind?

As an after thought, MachineII you wrote:just look at how sleek the naccelles are on the XP-38) were astounding for the time. It's engines were fitted in extremely tight fiting cowlings...an amazing example of engineering.

Very similar to the Whirly...Do you know exactly how sleek they were? What was their weight? What Dia. were the props?

It boasted a new cannon (Hispano, which nobody else was using yet...but would become the norm)

Just like the Whirlwind!

It used counter-rotating propellers.

So did the Whirlwind. Also it was the first British fighter to have a 'Bubble' canope and had the oil and coolant radiators in the wings.

I wonder if it would have been possible to have the Allison V-1710 installed?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:33 PM
When you see the Similiar features of some Russian Aircraft to some Japanese aircraft in WW II, you come to relize that both countries observed each others aircraft at some stage, and may have developed their own varients as a result.

A good example is the Striking resemblance of the Russian IL-4 Bomber to the Japanese Betty Bomber, as just one example in the Medium Bomber class.

There is a good chance Soviet observers in China may have seen the Betty Bomber in action, but while I have no conclusive proof to show on that, the proximity of the 2 nations suggests somthing like that occured at some stage.

Thank goodness it did happen however or there would be no Japanese Betty Bomber for our Empire of the Sun, Mulitiplayer Online Coops currently being refined after the 1.1b patch release.

http://www.geocities.com/blackwulf1_2000/kg55.html

S!

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:40 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- When you see the Similiar features of some Russian
- Aircraft to some Japanese aircraft in WW II, you
- come to relize that both countries observed each
- others aircraft at some stage, and may have
- developed their own varients as a result.
-
- A good example is the Striking resemblance of the
- Russian IL-4 Bomber to the Japanese Betty Bomber, as
- just one example in the Medium Bomber class.
-
- There is a good chance Soviet observers in China may
- have seen the Betty Bomber in action, but while I
- have no conclusive proof to show on that, the
- proximity of the 2 nations suggests somthing like
- that occured at some stage.
-
- Thank goodness it did happen however or there would
- be no Japanese Betty Bomber for our Empire of the
- Sun, Mulitiplayer Online Coops currently being
- refined after the 1.1b patch release.

are you saying it is a good thing those bombers existed (and did their dreadful work) just so it would be included in a game?

hmkay... I hope I'm wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 09:49 PM
Secudus...

I don't know the exact dimensions of the XP-38's nacelles...but I will look later...here's an image:

<img src=http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/xp38-1.jpg>

<img src=http://ftd38.tripod.com/xp38spec.jpg>

They were two V-1710-15's that produced 960hp each...when bigger engines were added, they also added larger radiators which you see on later model P-38s.

This page does a good job of showing the physical differences:

http://ftd38.tripod.com/p38specs.html

And I wasn't aware of the advanced characteristics of the Whirlwind. Funny...you mentioned what it would have been like with V-1710's. People wonder what the P-38 would have been like with Merlins. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well...almost...they kinda know: P-38K.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:45 PM
This is all BS if you think the P-38 was a copy of any other aircraft because it used twin boom. The Fw-189, and Fikker G1 were a copy of the Wright Flyer. Remember, it was the first aircraft to use "twin boom".

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:55 PM
rgr thats BS

<center>I know my name is spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:07 AM
On the note of the Whirlwind, I think it shows some similarities to the Bf-110 (hence the "some" part). Looking at the engine nacelles in SECUDUS's signature, they share a big similarity to the Bf-110's nacelles as well as the 210. But I don't know much about the Whirlwind, so for all I know the germans based the Bf-110 upon the Whirlwind!

Another example: the P-47 shares a similar wing design to the Spitfire. A lot of planes did. Even the P-38 at one point or another was going to have a similar wing shape. The fact is, if it worked on one plane, why not use it on another?

At that point of time in the 30s and 40s, a lot of people had new and radical ideas; with that number of people, the chances of two designs looking similar/identical become much larger. While modern day historians may say that one design copied from another, we probably will never know because we just can't go back and ask Clarence Johnson or Yakolev, or Kurt Tank and ask them how their designs came about.

Was the P-38 based upon the Crusader/Whirlwind/Bf-110? Maybe, maybe not. Was the Whirlwind based upon the Bf-110? Maybe, maybe not. With similar requirements and concepts for all of these airplanes, different design teams will come to the same conclusions. A yak will have to be light to turn well - the Zero had to be light to turn well. The P-38 needed two engines to get good speed at high altitude and to be able to achieve the requirements of the USAAF at the time. The twin boom with a central nacelle design was selected because it seemed to be the the best way to do the design. Enough room for firepower in the center nacelle, enough speed from two engines, and streamlined enough by twin booms on the side.

Take the B-25 - a lot of planes share a similar appearance, a high wing with two engine nacelles under it and a few machine guns. A-26 Invader, the Marauder, and many others.

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:15 AM
The P38 is not a stolen design, it's more or less based on the Fokker G1 idea.
When the Fokker G1 was flying at the air show in Paris the Americans showed a lot of interest in the G1.

At least it's not an revolutionairy complete new design as some have claimed.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:25 AM
Also just a FYI for you about the FW-189

First flight: July 1938
First delivery: September 1940

Construction of the first XP-38 began in July, 1938, while Lockheed was gearing up for mass production of Hudsons for the RAF. Some fabrication problems developed, but these were overcome and the first prototype was loaded on a truck for its journey to March Field on the 31st December, 1938.

That means the design of the P-38 was started well before the FW was even known.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:36 AM
SECUDUS, you sure about the handed props? I have seen it was planned but did not happen. I am also looking a photos of P7056, and P6966(1st production a/c) and the props are not handed.

Photos of L6844 shows handed props but this was the prototype a/c.

As for the P-38, Kelly Johnson look at at least 6 different configurations in 1937 before settling on the one that would become the P-38. One of those designs was a push/pull with twin booms while another looked simular to the F-82.

Did Willy steal Johnson's zwilling idea for the 109?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/20/0308:15PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 12:52 AM
you guys do know the airplane was an american invention. the wright brothers, north carolina. so if you wanna start the hay you stoll ideas from us thing you might wanna look a littel farther back into history. lol

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:08 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ever hear of a person named Otto Lilienthal who was flying gliders in the 1880s.


fordfan25 wrote:
- you guys do know the airplane was an american
- invention. the wright brothers, north carolina. so
- if you wanna start the hay you stoll ideas from us
- thing you might wanna look a littel farther back
- into history. lol
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/20/0308:14PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:09 AM
I thought the Germans "Invented" the push/pull with the Do-335? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Maybe they stole Kelly's early sketches of the P-38 for the Do?

Gib

MiloMorai wrote:
-
- As for the P-38, Kelly Johnson look at at least 6
- different configurations in 1937 before settling on
- the one that would become the P-38. One of those
- designs was a push/pull with twin booms while
- another looked simular to the F-82.
-
- Did Willy steal Johnson's zwilling idea for the
- 109

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:18 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I thought the Germans "Invented" the push/pull with
- the Do-335? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Maybe they stole Kelly's early
- sketches of the P-38 for the Do?
-
-

Maybe Gib./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Swedes maybe as well for their J-21 design.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:24 AM
MachineII

P-38K.Hmmm, seems there are more comparisons to be made between these two A/C than I initially thought.
I understand that before the complex turbocharger system was introduced to the Allison V-1710 it had similar troubles as the RR Peregrines powering the Whirlwind - Namely it was out of breath over 15,000ft. As history tells us, by fitting the V-1710 with Turbochargers made the P-38 a world-beater. It's a shame the same was not done for the Peregrines (885Hp) fitted to the Whirly; otherwise the US would have had a UK competitor!

The British had a non-turbocharged version, I can't find out anywhere weather this version had down draft or up draft carburetors.Do you know?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/ForgottenFighter/crikey!colour.jpg?0.17696300795799158

Cragger wrote:

Fokker G.1 was the primary influence on the P-38 development and shows many parallels in design.

Hmmm.1935

http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/g-1-e.htm

<center>http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/plaatjes/x-2wasp.jpg

http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/galerij/luftwaffe/duim/g-1lw8.jpg

Milomorai wrote:

SECUDUS, you sure about the handed props? I have seen it was planned but did not happen. I am also looking a photos of P7056, and P6966(1st production a/c), all production a/c and the props are not handed

Yep.That is I am sure that I am wrong. First prototype (L6844) had fitted 'Handed' Engines, second Prototype (L6845) had engines fitted rotating in the same direction. Comparisons tests did not show any inferior flying characteristics between the two, so only one type of Peregrines were used?

Is it me...Or is it getting a little warm in here?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:31 AM
who cares anyhow the P-38 was the best twin-boom plane out there

<center>I know my name is spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:34 AM
SECUDUS, from a photo of a British P-38(AE979) it looks like downdraught induction.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:37 AM
The best engineers copy what they can and design what they can't.

P~38 had wings and props, so is a copy of the Wright Flyer. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 01:44 AM
Thats good, so was the Peregrine. I wonder if it could have fitted? Much would depend on the size of the props though, the Whirlies had 10 foot Dia. DH4/4 variable pitch propellers. Anyone know the type used on the British P-38?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/QSig02.jpg?0.9931269228593957

'Whirlwind Whiner'
The First of the Few

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:16 AM
just looked up otto lilienthal and read a few articls on him if you consider a glider a airplain then i am wrong but i dont think a glider is the same. i mean you can strap a parachute on and jump off a cliff but thay doesnt mean your flying a plain i gusse its just subjective opinoin as far as the p-38 being a copie the only thing that looks the same is the forked fuselage

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:21 AM
SECUDUS wrote:
- Anyone know the
- type used on the British P-38?


Same as early American P-38s - Curtis C532D, 11' 6" diameter. But on the British planes, they rotated in the same direction.

Speaking of that, the British may have had a plane very early on capable of taking on the German fighters at relatively high altitude. But, as the Americans did with the P-39, the British decided against turbosuperchargers. And because they wanted commonality between engines, decided on identical engines for the left and right side with props that rotated in the same direction. This killed the plane's high altitude performance, and damaged the P-38s wonderful stall characterisitics.

What if the British had taken the P-38 as it was, and later installed Merlin engines in it?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/21/0305:23AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:28 AM
Chimp, came across this statement. Not saying it is a fact.

"The Model 322 with its unsupercharged** engines offered a top speed in excess of 400mph at 17,000ft - faster than the NA-73 Mustang."

Comments anyone?

**: unturbocharged??? since the Model C Allisons had a supercharger

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 02:45 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Chimp, came across this statement. Not saying it is
- a fact.
-
- "The Model 322 with its unsupercharged** engines
- offered a top speed in excess of 400mph at 17,000ft
- - faster than the NA-73 Mustang."
-
- Comments anyone?
-
- **: unturbocharged??? since the Model C Allisons had
- a supercharger


I found that reference in Bodie's book on the P-38. That's a calculated estimate, not an actual test result. Bodie states that he was unable to locate any British test results for the 322 to confirm the estimate.

And yes, it should be "unturbosupercharged" as all Allison V-1710s has engine stage mechanical superchargers.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 03:58 AM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- The P38 is not a stolen design, it's more or less
- based on the Fokker G1 idea.
- When the Fokker G1 was flying at the air show in
- Paris the Americans showed a lot of interest in the
- G1.
Ummmmmmmmmm....Can you show us what's exact date Fokker G.1 first design?

The Lightning was designed in 1937 as a high-altitude interceptor. The first one built, the XP-38, made its public debut on February 11, 1939 http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38.htm



Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
08-21-2003, 04:46 AM
Never mind, I found imformation and he is right.

"In November 1936 the prototype Fokker G.I heavy fighter caused a sensation when exhibited at the Paris Air Show, which in those days did not have a flying display but only a static exhibition in the Grand Palais. The concept of a twin-boom twin-engined fighter (later adopted for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning) was revolutionary at the time" http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/

I am sorry. Cheers for him!

Regards
SnowLeopard