Combat aircraft. Lockheed P-38D Lightning: Best Candidate

121
Not so long ago, we had an article about this aircraft, written by a battleship expert. Yes, of course, as an opinion, she has the right to life, although, of course, there were comparisons in it ... Well, okay, this is the lyrics, let's talk about the plane, which we’ll look at full face and in profile, and not through the chimney of the ship.





Lightning. A very peculiar plane, which itself entered history, and its designer Clarence Johnson got his bunch of admissions.

In general, everything that Johnson designed was not quite familiar in terms of form and content. Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, you can also add the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird scout to the original.

Who will call them bad cars?

But it all started with the P-38.



Whoever says anything about Lightning, I’ll immediately announce that I consider this aircraft outstanding and simply excellent. For its time. And all that some said about the weaknesses, the chassis there wasn’t very much and the review ... About the review would send to talk with garrots flying on Hurricanes, Me-109 and Yaks.

Pilots speak best of all about airplanes. Real, and not having played "experience" in all kinds of "wartanders." And the American pilots called the Lightning “a ticket around the world,” meaning by no means some negative qualities. But first things first.

In the beginning, a small digression on a topic that I have already voiced somehow. The answer to the question "How to properly evaluate the aircraft." Just so that it would be an accurate and fair assessment, and not the Opinion of His Highness, replayed in computer games.

Disputes have not subsided for 70 years. Ratings, comparisons, ratings - all this is there. Everyone loves to talk about this topic, and experts, and not really.



But let's answer one question: by what universal parameter can we conclude how much that fighter is better than this, and vice versa? One is handsome in the vertical, the other is fast, the third has breathtaking weapons, and so on.

The list of parameters can be continued indefinitely, but each of these characteristics to some extent contradicts the others.

From here follows such a thing as Designer Art. With capital letters just out of respect for the work. And this art consists in creating an airplane in which ALL the necessary characteristics will be averaged, but present in the right amount.

In general, in each of the countries participating in the Second World War, and I also spoke about this more than once, there were specific criteria for building aircraft. Own schools of designers.

And therefore, as one "expert" here compared the Me-262 with piston aircraft of the same time ... The problems of the amateurish approach, alas, are a tribute to the present.

Personally, I liked the rating system for the price and effectiveness of the application, that is, how many of my shot down aircraft had victories over the enemy. Here, of course, not everything is smooth either, since the Germans have one thing to shoot down planes on the Eastern Front, and "flying fortresses" over Germany are completely different.

But something like this is in this system, so let's look at Lightning precisely through the prism of its success and value.



So, American pilots on American planes. And the aircraft claiming the title of the best were missing, the same Mustangs and Thunderbolts, which have already become regulars in the ratings.

However, on what plane did America's most productive pilot fly?

Combat aircraft. Lockheed P-38D Lightning: Best Candidate


Meet Major Richard Ira Bong. 40 wins. He flew on the P-38. And who is the second? Major Thomas McGuire. 38 wins. On P-38 ... And then no less cool guys, Colonel Charles McDonald, Major Gerald Thompson, Captain Thomas Lynch ...



But even the first two pilots are enough for a serious bid to win. However, Lightning was not the most popular aircraft in the US Air Force, I agree with that. 38 groups fought on the P-27, 47 fought on the P-58 (for comparison).

And in terms of the number of cars produced, the P-38 is not the best. Total 10 thousand cars. And according to combat indicators in Europe and Africa, “Lightning” was average, data on Europe - 2500 destroyed enemy aircraft with their own losses of 1750 vehicles. So-so, huh?

But forgive me, Lightning for a very long time was generally the only aircraft capable of covering up American and British bombers. The rest, all so fast, maneuverable, cool, did not fit this role in range. And only when airfields appeared on the continent, then “Thunderbolts” and “Mustangs” spread their wings. And before that - sorry ...

How equal was the battle between Bf-109 and FW-190 against P-38? No matter how much. These were very unequal fights, anyway. And there was no way out. Either the bombers go to hell unaccompanied at all, or we have what we have. Then, when the P-47 appeared, it became a little easier, but until that moment, the American pilots fought in a frankly disadvantaged position.

But - they fought.



And in the Pacific, too, the situation was not the best. Not so maneuverable and high-speed R-38 against the same A6M “Zero” did not seem to look, but ... Again, only “Lightning” due to the twin-engine scheme possessed both range, flight safety, and weapons.



Perhaps it is appropriate to recall now that the hero of Pearl Harbor Isoroku Yamamoto was driven into the ground by the Lightings.

The design of the R-38 was quite a lot of new products, yes, “Lockheed” tried his best from the heart. No matter what the “experts” say about the extremely unsuccessful alleged landing gear, the planes flew with them, and everything around them began to take over the scheme.

In general, the scheme was very progressive and unconventional. Very good flying qualities were combined with good armament, which according to the plan was to consist of an 23-mm Madsen gun with an ammunition load of 50 shells and four Browning M2 machine guns of 12,7 mm caliber with ammunition for 200 rounds of ammunition.



Four fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1136 l were located in the center section - two in front and two behind the side member. The increase in the flight range of the P-38 was easily decided by the use of hanging tanks.

The fighter did not receive his name immediately. At first, the P-38 was called Atlanta, but the name did not take root. "Lightning" - so the British dubbed him. The choice was generally not very large. Liberator, Leeds, Liverpool, Lexington, Lincoln and Libre. Lightning liked the head of Lockheed Robert Gross, and the issue was resolved.

The first combat model received the P-38D index, although serial versions A, B and C did not exist. It was just such a tradition among Americans to start with the letter D.

Compared with the prototypes, the P-38D has improved its armor protection by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and changing the layout. Frontal bulletproof glass was also strengthened.

On this modification, they began to install protected gas tanks with a total capacity of 1287 l. Refused oxygen cylinders, they were replaced by Dewar vessels with liquid oxygen. Strange decision, but very logical. A high-pressure cylinder is not the most pleasant thing on an airplane.

P-38D aircraft were produced in series from July to October 1941.



At the European theater of war, the first victory in the air at P-38D was won on 14 on August 1942 by the second lieutenant E. Shahan from the 27 th fighter squadron. He finished off a German four-engine reconnaissance aircraft FW-200 Condor, damaged by another plane.

There were export models at the beginning of the war. This aircraft was called the P-322 and was created for the UK and France based on British requirements. True, France never received its planes, as it ended. But these planes with pleasure accepted Britain.

The British and French saw in the P-322 more likely a fighter-bomber than a high-altitude interceptor, because the aircraft had a number of differences from the P-38D.

For example, less powerful Allison C-series engines without turbochargers were installed on it. Both motors had the same clockwise direction of rotation of the propellers and power in 1090 hp.

The use of these engines was dictated by the desire to simplify the maximum supply of spare parts for engines of different aircraft. Such engines have already fought in the Royal Air Force on Curtiss Tomahawk aircraft.

I had to abandon turbochargers. But the fault here is not the desire of the British to simplify the matter, but the impossibility of the General Electric company to provide compressors to everyone. Plus, it was necessary to train technical personnel in working with turbochargers, which the British could not afford during the war.

Therefore, the Royal Air Force preferred immediate deliveries of cars without turbochargers, even if this was reflected to some extent on the combat qualities of the aircraft.

The central gondola was almost identical to the gondola on the P-38, but the composition of the weapons was revised. It included only four machine guns, with English production: two 12,7 mm and two 7,69 mm. The cabin also installed standard English instrumentation and radio equipment, as well as steering controls.

In general, the P-322 was weaker than the P-38, but in 1940 it was not fat, because the British took everything they were given on the lend-lease.

Fighting on the P-322 was, of course, more difficult than fighting on the P-38, which was faster, climbed higher, flew further, and was even more armed.

It was, of course, difficult to fight. The twin-engine aircraft was quite able to turn its head to all German bombers and half of the fighters. But with the new Messerschmitt models it was difficult. And when the Focke-Wulf appeared on the Western Front, then everything became very sad. But there was no choice, because the P-38 continued to fly to escort the bombers, because everyone understood: such a cover is better than none.



Part of the aircraft was converted into a double version. The second cabin was placed behind the first, which affected the aerodynamic purity of the gondola. Among the pilots, this design received the mocking nickname "pig’s backside." Double P-38 were used as trainers and passengers.

On one of the aircraft of modification F, missile weapons were tested - launchers for 114-mm missiles. Two three-tube packages were hung on the sides of the central nacelle and two more under the consoles. The tests were successful, but only the fuselage layout was introduced into mass production.

In 1941, Lightning fighters received only two fighter groups - 1 and 14. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they were transferred to the West Coast of the United States in anticipation of an enemy landing. The next on the P-38 was the rearmament of the 54 Squadron 55 FG, based in Alaska. It was the pilots of this squadron who won their first victory at Lightning in the Pacific Theater, destroying the Japanese flying boat N4K6 over Dutch Harbor on August 4.

In November 1942, three P-38 groups were transferred to the Mediterranean theater of operations to participate in Operation Torch, the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Algeria and Tunisia.

Bad luck. The Americans, who had just entered the war, ran into well-trained German pilots who made chops out of these three groups. The losses were great.

However, the P-38, as an interceptor of German transport aircraft and an escort fighter, conducted the entire campaign in the Mediterranean.



Since the middle of the summer of 1943, Lightning air groups have increasingly become involved in bombing assaults against targets in the interior of the enemy’s territory. There were plenty of reasons for this.

The maximum speed of Lightning fighters of modification L was determined to be equal to 670 km / h at an altitude of 8100 m during the operation of engines on afterburner. Without boosting the motors, the 620-630 km / h speed was also more than sufficient. The aircraft gained 5000 m altitude in 5,4 minutes, and the maximum flight range with hanging tanks and 20 minute reserve for air combat reached 3370 km.

Later versions of the Lightning on the maximum bomb load were almost equal to the average bombers. After dropping bombs, the P-38J could stand up for itself in aerial combat and did not need fighter cover. In addition, the Lightning crew consisted of only one pilot, while 5-7 people flew and risked the life of an average bomber. Finally, the P-38, even with an external bomb suspension, was a relatively high-speed aircraft, the interception of which is much more difficult to organize compared to slower bombers.

In general, an almost perfect fighter-bomber really appeared.



You can talk about nuances for a long time. As far as Lightning was, good or bad, but: the plane went through ALL of World War II, fighting in ALL theaters of operations. Not all aircraft of the participating countries could boast of such an effective service life.

Even when the more modern P-47 and P-51 seem to have replaced, the P-38 was still relevant. Mainly due to its flight range and carrying capacity, but nonetheless, it was useful.

Combat use showed that the aircraft was good. In all respects.

LTX P-38D
Wingspan, m: 15,85
Length, m: 11,53
Height, m: 3,91
Wing area, м2: 30,47

Weight, kg
- empty aircraft: 5 342
- normal takeoff: 6 556
- Maximum takeoff: 7 031

Engine: 2 x Allison V-1710-27 / 29 x 1150 hp
Maximum speed km / h: 628
Cruising speed, km / h: 483
Practical range, km: 1282
Rate of climb, m / min: 762
Practical ceiling, m: 11 885

Crew, prs: 1
Armament: one 20-mm gun and four 12,7-mm machine guns.
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    9 November 2019 06: 37
    Nice plane. Once the Americans did the technique for fighting, and not for sale. Well, it's for the best that once.
    By the way, about the games. The IL-2 simulator can give a very good idea about aviation of that time, and even become a tool in the study of history ... Of course, only with the right approach.
    1. -4
      10 November 2019 02: 12
      Nice plane.


      Obviously overweight for its engines at a mediocre range. Double
      Bf-110 with almost the same engines, weapons and range, the peer was almost a ton lighter.
      Modification Bf 110c-1
      Wingspan, m 16.20
      Length, m 12.10
      Height, m ​​4.10
      Wing area, m2 38.40
      Weight, kg
      empty 4430 aircraft
      normal takeoff 6040
      maximum take-off 6755

      The Focke-Wulf 187 is an example of a 1937 one-seater German that could have been a decent twin-engine with decent DB-601 replacements, but they didn't need it.

      Modification Fw.187a-0
      Wingspan, m 15.30
      Length, m 11.10
      Height, m ​​3.85
      Wing area, m2 29.40
      Weight, kg
      empty 3700 aircraft
      normal takeoff 5000
      So, the author is not a "golden mean" of characteristics, but simply there was no other.
      1. -1
        10 November 2019 10: 32
        Quote: dauria
        Obviously overweight for its engines at a mediocre range.

        )))
        You are right, weight is something that almost any American aircraft can be poked into. The Americans had heavier gliders due to lack of attention to materials and due to conservatism in strength calculations.
        But the Americans were all right with aerodynamics. Therefore, lightning is much faster than Ме110.

        If so with .. on the face of the Americans, then I would remember, of course, Mosquito, and even Hornet, since Lightning was produced "throughout the war." The products of the De Havilland furniture factory were simply epic (but also, by the way, on fluff).
      2. Alf
        +4
        10 November 2019 19: 43
        Quote: dauria
        Double
        Bf-110 with almost the same engines, weapons and range, the peer was almost a ton lighter.

        "Quite" the same.


        Compare speed, climb and range. Nothing in common.
        And talking about the 187th is not at all funny.
        1. Alf
          +2
          10 November 2019 19: 48
          Quote: Alf
          And talking about the 187th is not at all funny.


          There was neither speed, nor climb, nor range in general, and were near
        2. Alf
          0
          10 November 2019 20: 41
          Is there a way to deny the minusor?
          1. Alf
            +2
            10 November 2019 22: 50
            Quote: Alf
            Is there a way to deny the minusor?

            Clearly nothing, shit and ran away ..
      3. +2
        10 November 2019 21: 52
        dauria (Alexey!
        I wonder why you think the range of the P-38 is mediocre?
        . 4150 km --- this is more. Than the IL-4 or Pe-2. How is it with the flight range of the German Me-110 and FV-187?
        1. Alf
          +1
          10 November 2019 22: 51
          Quote: rubin6286
          dauria (Alexey!
          I wonder why you think the range of the P-38 is mediocre?
          . 4150 km --- this is more. Than the IL-4 or Pe-2. How is it with the flight range of the German Me-110 and FV-187?

          He will not answer, it is not in his style.
          1. 0
            11 November 2019 02: 14
            He will not answer, it is not in his style.

            Well, why? I’ll answer, only you don’t know how to listen. Well, others will be helpful.
            The idea of ​​a twin-engined fighter came about for a reason. It was assumed that it would be possible to reduce the power load below 3 kg per hp, while maintaining the wing load to 180 kg per square meter. With the "fighter" strength of the airframe. We tried it - it didn't work. Neither the Germans, nor the Russians, nor the Americans. The idea of ​​such a "leader" of fighters also failed. But the planes remained. And they waited in the wings by the middle of the war, when they also had to carry the locator and the second crew member.
            I'm not going to paint the weight summary, but you need to look at dry weight, wing area, engine type and armament composition. Then it is clear that this "masterpiece" weighs empty, like two single cobras or a pair of Focke-Wulfs.
            That's all. Everyone understood that a twin-engine fighter at the beginning of the war was a dead end. And the fact that he found a job accompanied by bombers at a height - features of the theater. And so junk junk.
            Yes, and I do not put cons. I still have to earn them.
            1. 0
              11 November 2019 08: 49
              dauria (Alexey)!

              I already wrote that in aviation everything is interconnected and any aircraft is a kind of compromise between the desired and possible at this stage of the development of society (industrial relations, technology, technology, etc.).
              Initially, twin-engine fighters were needed to protect long-range bombers from air attacks when flying to a target and returning, because the range of single-engine fighters was not enough for this. Further the chain looks like this: The more powerful the engine - the greater its mass-geometric characteristics - other mass-geometric and strength characteristics of the fuselage and the airframe as a whole (here you are talking about the ratio of engine power per kg mass) - fuel volume, quantity and location tanks - wing profile, its mass-geometric, strength characteristics (here the wing load is considered, because it affects the maneuverability of the fighter and the ability to conduct air combat, the possibility of using suspension tanks and weapons) - wing mechanization devices - aircraft control system - number of crew members - mass-geometric, weapon technical specifications - ammunition.
              The projects under development did not “put on the cloth” at all. There was simply no time for this. It soon became clear that twin-engine fighters are more or less suitable for other tasks - air reconnaissance, ground attack, isolation of the combat area, towing gliders, use in air defense systems, etc.
              From the concept of a twin-engine fighter went to the creation of multi-functional machines. This is not a dead end. Most modern foreign and Russian combat aircraft are multifunctional (F-15 (USA), Su-30,35 (Russia), etc.).
            2. Alf
              +2
              11 November 2019 21: 05
              Quote: dauria
              I still have to earn them.

              Your self-conceit at the door does not bother you?
            3. Alf
              +2
              11 November 2019 21: 10
              Quote: dauria
              I’ll answer, only you don’t know how to listen.

              You say one thing, you immediately give the numbers that refute you.
              It's like your mother,
              Sorry to understand?
        2. +1
          11 November 2019 00: 47
          I wonder why you think the range of the P-38 is mediocre?
          . 4150 km


          Where does the figure come from? 1200-1300 practical (taking into account the emergency fuel supply) in the combat rather than distillation version. For that matter, the Pe-3 took 2, 2 tons of fuel for 2000 km.
          Then, I talked about a heavy glider, and did not compare a single-seat day fighter with turbochargers with machines of a different class and purpose. The speed at the earth is mediocre -540 km. Nobody needed him without a shopping mall. The machine flew with ballast in the tail up to 44 years due to tail vibrations.
          A plane that weighs like two single-engine fighters with the same type of engine - a masterpiece?
          He is the only one, there is no one to compare him with. Just for the 40th year of the high-rise and nothing was found to accompany. Cobra TC removed, and the range is not ah.
          And the speed was achieved due to the wing loading on the wing to the detriment of maneuverability and TC, and only at altitude. This is an iron, but there was no other at that time. Record Messer 209 and Heinkel weaving with such a load on the wing (with a special wing of a small area) gave out for 700 off the ground, but they were not fighters.
  2. +12
    9 November 2019 06: 57
    Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird reconnaissance can also be brought into the original.
    Who will call them bad cars?
    Who will call? Yes, many, in particular the wives and relatives of the pilots who died on the F-104 ... It seems like a more emergency plane in the history of the US Air Force, and other air forces, where it arrived and was not ...
    However, on what plane did America's most productive pilot fly?
    Unfortunately, but the type of aircraft on which one or another most productive pilot flew is a controversial criterion. Immediately it is necessary to evaluate and with what intensity this aircraft was used and how many sorties per one victory ...
    1. +9
      9 November 2019 08: 07
      At the expense of "flying coffins" and "widow suppliers" everyone knows and is not lazy. However, in the Italian Air Force, this F-104S, deeply modified, of course, was in service until the early 2000s.
    2. 0
      9 November 2019 10: 50
      Quote: svp67
      Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird reconnaissance can also be brought into the original.
      Who will call them bad cars?
      Who will call? Yes, many, in particular the wives and relatives of the pilots who died on the F-104 ... It seems like a more emergency plane in the history of the US Air Force, and other air forces, where it arrived and was not ...

      In the history of the German Air Force, where they didn’t understand that they were F-104 instead of an interceptor.
      "And, like an adult," as one participant once shit.
    3. +10
      9 November 2019 11: 22
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, many, in particular the wives and relatives of the pilots who died on the F-104 ... It seems like a more emergency plane in the history of the US Air Force, and other air forces, where it arrived and was not ...

      In the German Air Force, the losses of the F-104 amounted to about 30% of the number in service. But we also note such a point that the same German air forces lost 36% of their F-84F. But again, statistics say that in the German Air Force one lost was in 6630 hours of flight. And in the USSR Air Force on the MiG-21 in 1965 there was one loss for 4650 hours of flight. Canadians generally lost 46% of their 104th, but their knowledge and raid was almost 3 times more than that of the Germans.
      1. -2
        9 November 2019 14: 29
        Quote: Fitter65
        And in the USSR Air Force on the MiG-21 in 1965 there was one loss for 4650 hours of flight.

        But the price of one instant21 and one f104?
    4. +2
      9 November 2019 13: 31
      F-104 produced 2578, lost - 148
      MiG-21 produced 11 496, lost - about 500
      As we see, the percentage of losses is quite comparable.
      And nobody called the MiG-21 a flying coffin.
      1. +2
        9 November 2019 14: 21
        Quote: Ken71
        And nobody called the MiG-21 a flying coffin.

        It’s just operated to this day. Actively.
        1. +2
          9 November 2019 14: 23
          And the F-104 in places :)
          1. +1
            9 November 2019 14: 41
            Quote: Ken71
            And the F-104 in places :)

            Not anymore. Italian hundred aircraft in 2004 decommissioned
      2. 0
        9 November 2019 14: 30
        Quote: Ken71
        MiG-21 produced 11 496, lost - about 500

        and how many of them were lost in hostilities?
        just recently, Indians lost their balalaika. and 104 something hasn’t been flying for a long time.
        1. 0
          9 November 2019 14: 39
          Vicki is lying about 500 in accidents and disasters. Downed separately
      3. -1
        9 November 2019 19: 19
        Quote: Ken71
        As we see, the percentage of losses is quite comparable.

        It would still be nice to know how many of these aircraft were lost in battles, and how many as a result of operation
  3. +3
    9 November 2019 07: 16
    The striped ones themselves called the F-104 a flying coffin, and it proved itself to be very good in Vietnam.
    1. +4
      9 November 2019 08: 00
      Is the article talking about the F-104 Starfighter?
      1. +3
        9 November 2019 09: 34
        It is necessary to read more closely, the author praised it along with the R-38.
        1. -2
          9 November 2019 14: 31
          Quote: Ros 56
          the author praised him along with R-38

          re-read the article. something did not see where the author praised him. can show?
          1. +2
            9 November 2019 16: 56
            He praises indirectly, so to speak, along with Lightning:
            "The Lightning. A very peculiar plane, which itself went down in history, and its designer Clarence Johnson received a lot of accolades.

            In general, everything that Johnson designed was not quite familiar in terms of form and content. Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, you can also add the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird scout to the original.

            Who would call them bad cars? "
    2. +7
      9 November 2019 10: 39
      The flying coffin is for Germany and Canada. The 104th is a pure interceptor of limiting parameters, and if in Spain, Italy and Turkey they were used without any problems, then in Canada and the FRG 104th are fighter-bombers that carry atomic bombs and they flew at low altitudes from here and all the accidents. For the aircraft from the very beginning was not designed for such use.
    3. -6
      9 November 2019 16: 06
      Quote: Ros 56
      f-104 ... has proved itself very well in Vietnam.

      And what did the air defense fighter do in Vietnam?
      1. +1
        10 November 2019 01: 54
        Quote: tesser
        And what did the air defense fighter do in Vietnam?

        Initially, the task of the 476 squadron was to protect the EU-121 AWACS aircraft. Then they began to attract her to attack ground targets and reconnaissance. In total, the 476th squadron made 1182 sorties. Loss of one aircraft is a failure of equipment. Later, the 476th was replaced by the 436th squadron, it was less lucky for the combat losses of 4 aircraft (two collided in the air during the departure), the 436th was replaced by the 435th squadron, these flew without losses, 12 sorties to escort DRLO aircraft and 407 to support troops. The next combat mission was the escort of the EF-105F Wild Weasel. 1.08. 1966 two F-104S were shot down. In total, in Southeast Asia, the USAF lost 14 F-104 aircraft, 8 combat losses, 6 other reasons.
  4. +10
    9 November 2019 07: 19
    Strange article, but very empty. Something like this phrase from it:
    "Strange decision, but very logical"
    1. +11
      9 November 2019 07: 43
      The article has more praised odes than an analysis of combat qualities. The plane is so-so, heavy, gluttonous, slow, but due to the lack of competitors for combat missions, it became the best
      1. +6
        9 November 2019 09: 40
        One minus, definitely there. These are two engines. In wartime conditions, a very significant factor, when there are one or two engines on competitive fighter models, then two engines are simply luxury.
        1. 0
          10 November 2019 22: 11
          ltc35 (Alexey)!
          You write frank nonsense. Try to read more and ask knowledgeable people .. It turns out. that 4 engines for a strategic bomber is also a luxury? In aviation, everything is interconnected.
          1. 0
            10 November 2019 23: 50
            Absolutely not rubbish. If we recall that at the beginning of the war the parties experienced a lack of resources. I meant only fighters. But not the bombers, for whom the task was completely different - to take more bombs and deliver them as far as possible. A two-engine fighter at the time was more a luxury than a rule! Is not it? Yak, La, LaGG, Corsair, Mustang, Me-109, Helcat ... (I will not continue further) had One engine!
            1. -1
              11 November 2019 01: 15
              Quote: ltc35
              I will not continue further

              Why not continue?

              P-35, P-36, P-39, P-40.

              Naturally, the main fighters of the Army Air Force were single-engine. Another thing is that they were all second-class, American Hurricanes. Unexpectedly, the R-38 was the only competitive machine.

              Quote: ltc35
              If we recall that at the beginning of the war the parties experienced a lack of resources.

              Nonsense. The US Army Air Force made cars on the same engine - Allison - with which there were no special problems in quantity. Unfortunately, the ranks of the Army Air Corps were generally not well versed in technical details, as a result of which the mainstream American engines became a dull city from the 20s.
              1. 0
                11 November 2019 21: 55
                It is difficult to call American fighters of the second world second-class. Most of them were much better than German, and certainly Japanese. In Yapi, the zero was a worthy adversary only in maneuverable combat, losing to the net on the vertical.
                1. -3
                  11 November 2019 22: 07
                  Quote: ltc35
                  It is difficult to call American fighters of the second world second-class.

                  As much as possible. Even the Mustang. Clap for three months.
                  Quote: ltc35
                  In Yapi, the zero was a worthy adversary only in maneuverable combat, losing to the net on the vertical.

                  They won outright vertically. Zero has an excellent "candle", he gains altitude very quickly, although he dives badly. Only F4U and F6F changed this position. And Lightning, by the way, also dives very well.
                  1. 0
                    11 November 2019 22: 14
                    Mustang is a forced response to Messer, made in an early version in a hurry. Zero was "choking" at the height. His "candle" was short!
                    1. -1
                      12 November 2019 00: 22
                      Quote: ltc35
                      Mustang - a forced response to Messer,

                      What else is Messer? This was out of the question.

                      Mustang - a reflection of the panic of the British 40th year. It was done in 102 days, from order to finished glider (without engine). Naturally, they did it bluntly. Ordered it as a replacement for Tomahoku, the car is very mediocre. Not because Tomahawk did not like it, but because the Americans did not sell it. The Mustang's chips (range, speed at medium altitudes, and both of them were a consequence of the use of the laminar wing) were not needed by the British, and Mustang could not provide what was the British priorities (air defense, including high-altitude). When he finally appeared in them, he was used as a scout (without much need) and a strike aircraft (without much success).

                      Only 4 years later, the Mustang D became the Mustang that we know. But in the 44th, the British said that if you make this failed dive bomber as a fighter, it will weigh a ton less (P-51F / G).

                      Quote: ltc35
                      Zero at the height "choked"

                      What other "height"? Dive bombers, especially torpers, do not fly at altitude. Few people, by the way, understand how similar the TO was to the Eastern Front from this point of view.

                      The Zero candle combined with its "normal" climb rate was outstanding. Far beyond the F4F's capabilities.
                      1. 0
                        12 November 2019 10: 49
                        Quote: tesser
                        What other "height"? Dive bombers, especially torpers, do not fly at altitude.

                        Dive bombers fly. McCluskey's team boarded the Akagi with the Kaga at 20 feet - over 000 km. Mikumu and Mogami attacked from 6 feet altogether.
                        And for fighters, covering 22 feet was generally a favorite flight altitude - at this altitude they could "hear" their AB's radio beacon well.
                      2. -3
                        12 November 2019 11: 41
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And for fighter coverings, 22 feet were generally a favorite flight altitude

                        You understand that the "altitude" at which the engine suffocates was not meant 6-7 km. Lightning's magic boomzum against Zero was based on his ability to climb 11. With reference to the candle, he meant the heights of the torpers.
            2. +1
              11 November 2019 10: 54
              tc35 (Alexey)!

              I think you again do not understand. In aviation, engine building and aircraft construction are developing separately from each other. Aircraft are made for an existing specific engine model, and not vice versa. The fighter should not just fly, but conduct a maneuverable aerial combat and possess such performance characteristics that allow the pilot to impose his will on the enemy and win.

              Further the chain looks like this:

              Even if the design of the airframe has already been worked out, a more powerful engine is needed to conduct maneuvering air combat - fuel consumption will increase - more capacious tanks will be needed, they need to be placed somewhere - at a given flight range the mass - geometric and strength characteristics of the airframe will change - large and heavy single-engine it’s difficult to control an airplane — you need a different crew — more effective weapons — ample ammunition, etc. etc. A twin-engine barrage fighter, given this chain, looked like the best option. It served as the basis for the creation of multifunctional vehicles, most of which today form the basis of the fleet of military aircraft in many countries.

              Soviet fighters of the past war were not multifunctional. In conditions of a total shortage of materials, raw materials, aggregates, etc. designers were forced to follow the path of specialization - when to perform specific tasks it was necessary to adapt a specific sample. So were created Yak-9b (fighter-bomber), Yak-9D, Yak-9DD (reconnaissance and long-range escort fighter) and so on. Their ability to conduct maneuverable aerial combat was reduced, but if necessary they did so, however, none of them had a flight range of 4150 km. If we take into account the round-trip flight in a regime close to cruising, then it was about 500 km for Yakov, versus 1700-2000 km for Lightning. In view of the absence of long-range escort fighters, the Supreme High Command was forced to abandon the bombing of enemy targets located in its deep rear since 1942.
              1. 0
                11 November 2019 21: 50
                So you yourself answered. Only one Yak-9 was truly multifunctional! Because, as in it, Yakovlev initially invested multifunctionality. Two engines in WWII fighters are an inadmissible luxury. How many engines were changed in the Me-109? A lot of. I dissemble slightly of course. There, the turbocharging engines did not bring to mind ... There was a Me-262. But there, one engine would be clearly insufficient.
  5. +8
    9 November 2019 07: 40
    The article would be good in a cognitive sense, if the author excluded from it a too emotional introduction, in which oversaturated "I think", "I am sure" ... And also not beautiful attacks towards colleagues in the shop. And yes, readable.
  6. Eug
    +3
    9 November 2019 07: 45
    Judging by the results of the battle with our Yaks in Yugoslavia, the heavy and distant aircraft in close maneuverable combat was also very good. In 1944, we did not have frankly weak pilots ...
  7. +1
    9 November 2019 07: 56
    A very "chaotic" article, but, anyway, the author is RESPECT!
    1. +9
      9 November 2019 08: 26
      Respect for what? For the complete lack of systematization of the material and a bunch of emotions?
      1. +1
        9 November 2019 08: 46
        The author worked, maybe he did something wrong. For this we will "flatten" him? The person tried, "shoveled" a lot of literature, in the end - has the right to his own opinion. what
  8. +8
    9 November 2019 08: 19
    Analysts in the article a complete zero.
  9. +7
    9 November 2019 08: 58
    Novel! With all due respect, I want to note two points:
    1 do not write about oligofrend in the body of the article, this is clearly superfluous.
    2 smaller personal opinions, this somewhat violates the article
    PS. thanks for the stuff.
    zzy. VARTANDER DOESN'T TROZHZHZH !!!!! 1111
  10. +4
    9 November 2019 09: 27
    In general, everything that Johnson designed was not quite familiar in terms of form and content. Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, you can also add the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird scout to the original.
    The creation of a new technique is a struggle of compromises: Neither I nor you are unhappy. And it’s the job of the chief designer to be able to smooth out these compromises in order to get a more or less successful machine. This applies to all products, not just airplanes.
  11. +4
    9 November 2019 09: 30
    Refused oxygen cylinders, they were replaced by Dewar vessels with liquid oxygen. Strange decision, but very logical. A high-pressure cylinder is not the most pleasant thing on an airplane.

    Dewar vessels are much more dangerous. Let us recall how the Germans were bombed near Moscow: expanders stood on the airfield (to receive liquid oxygen), sawdust was poured into the bombs and filled with liquid oxygen, the planes took off and almost immediately dumped it all on the heads of the Nazis .... And an oxygen cylinder with a lumbago won't even explode.
    Most likely, this decision was dictated by the need to provide a large supply of oxygen. Dewar vessels are somewhere an order of magnitude lighter than cylinders with the same amount of oxygen.
    1. +5
      9 November 2019 13: 23
      Oksilikvit called such explosives, as I remember now. )))
    2. -1
      10 November 2019 22: 11
      Quote: whowhy
      And the oxygen cylinder will not even explode when shot through.

      I don’t know, I don’t know ... In 1994 or 1995, during a training flight conducted by the commander of the flight squad for young Yak-40 aircraft, in the a / p Baku, the board crashed in the area of ​​the 4th turn.
      It turned out that during the call at a small distance from the glide path, a truck was driving with conscript soldiers returning from the shooting range. And someone suggested jokingly shooting at the Yak-40. Bullets hit oxygen tanks, which led to an explosion and partial destruction of the aircraft structure in the air. It seems that 11 pilots with the commander of AO went to the other world.
      1. +1
        11 November 2019 08: 21
        - fighters unaccompanied by an officer ???
        - on vehicles with loaded weapons ???
        - just so decided to shoot on a civilian plane ???
        - A bullet from a "Kalash" at such a distance (no less than 200 m in a straight line) pierced several layers of casing and a balloon, and it exploded at the same time ???
        request
        Too many stretches, even assuming that the cylinders were old and never underwent pressure testing ....
        1. 0
          11 November 2019 18: 22
          Andrei, these questions should probably be addressed not to me, but to the commander of the military unit. Further - a link to the source: http://www.airdisaster.ru/database.php?id=345
          1. Alf
            0
            11 November 2019 21: 18
            Quote: dmmyak40
            Further - a link to the source: http://www.airdisaster.ru/database.php?id=345

            I apologize, Herr Ober-Lieutenant, but before laying out the material it would be nice to check it for truthfulness. I admit the possibility that in 94-95 there was a rare mess in the army, but not so much.
            1. 0
              11 November 2019 21: 50
              If you really like German titles, contact me Herr Hauptmann (reserve). And better - Comrade Commander. I've been so used to it since 1979.
              As for the veracity: do you have information that refutes the link I indicated? Here you still read. With photo. Plus about the mess in the army.
              By the way, the army of Azerbaijan.
              https://aerospace.d3.ru/iak-40-4k-87504-azerbaijan-airlines-15-maia-1997-1597358/?sorting=rating.
              And more: https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/38865
              The airdisaster resource is very good; in recent years, the AP has been sorting out many of them.
              You still try to say that this disaster needs to be checked ...
              http://www.airdisaster.ru/database.php?id=141
              1. Alf
                +1
                11 November 2019 21: 54
                Quote: dmmyak40
                You still try to say that this disaster needs to be checked ...

                I pointed out the particularly fantastic version of the Passenger shot, but taking the soldier's tales for the truth is not worthy of the Herr Officer.
                Do you have information that refutes the link I indicated?

                No, I do not have such information, but I have common sense.
                1. 0
                  11 November 2019 22: 38
                  You are comments on the page (https://aerospace.d3.ru/iak-40-4k-87504-azerbaijan-airlines-15-maia-1997-1597358/?sorting=rating.
                  ) read from the photo? No wonder they say: life is richer than fiction.
                  Well, if you put official conclusions below your common sense, then I have nothing to add. You are in the company of a person who sees structural defects in airplanes and a conspiracy of power in all APs I can give a link.
                  PS Especially for you and your common sense: how can the IL-18 crew take off with locked steering wheels, retracted mechanization and without reading control cards? And they took off. In the 70s in the USSR. It seems to be a universal mess oh how far. Well, you go ...
                  What say
                  1. Alf
                    +1
                    12 November 2019 18: 07
                    Quote: dmmyak40
                    What say

                    Only one. That a person who believes in a plane fired for fun, looks somehow frivolous.
                    1. 0
                      12 November 2019 21: 32
                      Vasily, I’ll tell you more: a person trusting his common sense, but not trusting the IAC investigation, looks very, very stupid. In full accordance with the phrase: if the facts contradict my opinion, the worse for the facts.
                      You very skillfully move away from substantive questions, where evidence and facts are required, transferring everything to the sphere of pure ideas. This is demagoguery. You, as I see, are very far from aviation, but your judgment is very categorical. If, in essence, there is nothing to object, we turn off the "discussion".
                      1. Alf
                        +1
                        12 November 2019 21: 54
                        A person who believes in "paper" and does not believe in his wits does not look so hot, even if he wears shoulder straps. It is not for nothing that they say that if you are accustomed to wearing a cap from childhood, then this imposes some restrictions on your way of thinking.
                      2. 0
                        12 November 2019 22: 46
                        You know, if I were a general mechanic in my native state farm "Yuzhny" of the Kalmyk ASSR, then your judgments about "paper" and "mind-mind" would have some meaning. But, when you, a person not related to aviation, begin to teach me, an experienced PIC, what can be and what is not ... This is already overkill.
                        You are so far from the topic of the human factor in aviation that you can not even imagine the limits of human stupidity and idiocy.
                        On the topic, specifically say something?
  12. +2
    9 November 2019 11: 39
    Indeed, it is rather superficially stated. As for the evaluation criteria - the author could find them simply - to determine the tasks, for example - gaining dominance in the air, and to evaluate its effectiveness using examples / results. And here, as if about nothing and a little about everything. This is about the article and maybe about the plane too)))
  13. +2
    9 November 2019 11: 57
    "Streamlined article". If we compare it with the article "battleship", then there is more on the technical side. More about the application here. The article is more perceived as an addition-continuation to the first, but not as an alternative.
    "Yes, of course, as an opinion, she has the right to life, although, of course, there were comparisons in her ..."
    Photos are beautiful.
  14. +3
    9 November 2019 12: 34
    And on the scout F-5B-1, Exupery died
  15. +4
    9 November 2019 14: 55
    This information seemed very interesting to me.
    Each P-38 cost around $ 120-100,000, twice the price of most US single-engine fighters.

    Taken from here
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hitler-hated-why-nazi-germany-feared-p-38-lightning-36782
    To make it clearer
    F4U Corsair -50 thousand
    Hellket 50 thousand at the beginning of 35 thousand by the end of the war.
    Mustang-51 thousand
    By the criterion of cost-effectiveness, Lightning does not look very mildly speaking.
    1. -1
      9 November 2019 16: 19
      Quote: Engineer
      By the criterion of cost-effectiveness, Lightning does not look very mildly speaking.

      How to count.

      On THAT, Lightning was the same food for Zero, like everything else, until the Americans discovered the boom. It turned out that Lightning is an ideal boommer for the maintenance of the 42nd year. He climbs very high, where Zero simply won’t get him, waiting for the enemy in complete safety, waiting for a long time, lots of fuel, and dives - he dives very well, much better than Zero, and then leaves, taking advantage of his superior horizontal speed. So the Japanese became food. Over Guadalcanal, Lightning completely repulsed itself.

      It didn’t work like that in Europe; Germans are not Japanese. They also climbed high, and also dived well, and in a direct battle with Messer or Foker of the series of the 43rd year, Light has no chance.

      So, Lightning performed very weakly, like the rest of mediocre American fighters. The work in Africa was done by the Spits.

      Naturally, like everything unnecessary, he was transferred to the role of a strike aircraft, where he was quite useful. You can hang a lot, and reclining a high-speed and high-altitude aircraft can relatively easily (relative to silts, pawns or pieces), even if you do not need to escort back, losses are less. On the other hand, the engines for an attack aircraft are not very suitable, the ideal heavy fighter, which was transferred to the attackers, is Bofayter, then Foker, Jag and Corsair. That is, well-armored air vents.

      What Light was good at is a long-range high-altitude scout.
      1. +1
        9 November 2019 16: 24
        So how to count?
        Is Guadalcanal simple?
        Yes, and does not beat on dates. baptism of lightning December 27, 42 years. December 28, the Japanese decide to evacuate
        Maybe not Guadalcanal, but the Bismarck Sea, New Guinea, etc.?
        By the way, the aggregate mass has done work in Africa for me. Aircraft and other equipment. The Germans stupidly overwhelmed with iron and duralumin.
        1. -2
          9 November 2019 16: 42
          Quote: Engineer
          Maybe not Guadalcanal, but the Bismarck Sea, New Guinea, etc.?

          I agree, I had enough. Guadalcanal directly exported P-39, P-40 and F4F. But the P-38 was remembered precisely as the first car that offended Zero in the battles in that corner.
          Quote: Engineer
          So how to count?
          Is Guadalcanal simple?

          In an alternative world, where Corsair managed at least in the ILC, Lightning didn’t give up. But in the real world, yes, he was very needed in that place and at that time.
          Quote: Engineer
          Aircraft and other equipment. The Germans stupidly overwhelmed with iron and duralumin.

          There were a lot of things. But Spaats was unable to achieve air supremacy, even in the rear of the Americans. The British had to do this.
          1. +1
            9 November 2019 17: 10
            Then we get that Lightning came to dinner in the first half of the 43rd. By this time, a turning point had already taken place. From the second half of the year, Corsairs and Hellkets will go.
            I didn’t count on squadrons on the western front, but he appeared with Bolt at the time of the full-scale offensive at the beginning of the 44th. Gradually replaced.
            It turns out on both fronts Lightning was an ersatz. Erzatz for six months, and Erzatz twice as expensive. This is not a thesis, so a preliminary conclusion.
            In Africa, it was remembered that the British, even in the year 43, still massively flew the P-40 and Hurricanes. With big losses. I do not understand why the end result should not be attributed to the combined efforts of the allies, but only to the British and even specifically to Spit.
            1. -2
              9 November 2019 17: 33
              Quote: Engineer
              From the second half of the year, Corsairs and Hellkets will go.

              And Lightning will go where he belongs - patrolling, reconnaissance, counterintelligence, battles with betty and all kinds of flying boats. This is a lot of work and it needs to be done too. The same Bong fought on it and at the end of the 44th quite successfully.

              (Actually, this is the answer to the question why Bong became ace No. 1. Because he escaped from orderlies and managed to fight when he had to work for a long time crocodile in the zoo to all guys an example.
              Quote: Engineer
              but he appeared with Bolt at the time of the full-scale offensive at the beginning of the 44th.

              ??? He fights in Europe before Torch, hunts for Condor. In Africa from the first days.
              Quote: Engineer
              ersatz twice as expensive.

              ))). You underestimate the Americans. The bolt was worth 80K +. This is not Hawk.
              Quote: Engineer
              even in the year 43 they still flew en masse on the P-40 and Hurricanes.

              These were auxiliary aircraft. Already in the 42nd there were enough fives even for Darwin.
              Quote: Engineer
              I do not understand why the end result should not be attributed to the combined efforts of the allies, but only to the British and even specifically to Spit.

              Why do you think so? I wrote specifically about gaining dominance (not to be confused with superiority) in the air. You can fight without him quite successfully, as both sides of the Second World War throughout the war.

              Lightning, like all twin-engine engines, was a niche aircraft, which for some time had to work not in its niche. Since, unlike the rest of the American fighters of the late 30s, he was among the best in his class, he was remembered as a successful machine, and not a gray worthless thing like the P-40. Although, of course, both as a fighter, and as an escort, and as a drummer, inferior to more suitable machines for this.
              1. +1
                9 November 2019 18: 17
                Here the discass with you is very peculiar). Do you like to introduce new entities into a dispute that are partly offtopic, partly because of their debatability only blur the problem. This is not a collision in any case. You just feel like you are moving from the general to the unimportant particular .... you get stuck in the details, and they are controversial, but here I have a mistake, and then the opponent has it. But at least the beginning of the discussion is always interesting))
                In Africa, well, just too lazy to argue. Dominance or superiority? What difference does it make if the Germans storm the Allied columns almost to the very end. Just in the end, less and less. And this, in turn, is the merit of the Allied aviation or a consequence of the Germans' failures on earth ??
                P-40 and Hurricane Auxiliary Tasks? Action at the forefront, ensuring air superiority over a specific area, bombing assaults, regular battles with enemy fighters ... Well, ok auxiliary.
                There’s Bolt, it’s not half but one and a half times cheaper. Oops, this changes everything completely)
                Lightnings in North Africa. Yes, from the very beginning. And even later in Italy. But is his role great there? . Although they stormed their own troops, this is with frightening effectiveness.
                Lightning, like all twin-engine engines, was a niche plane,

                Well, at least some point for a compromise. But if such an expensive aircraft is used to solve secondary problems, I can once again state that cost-effectiveness is unimportant. That's all. Not Lightning sucks, not Lightning is useless, just so-so airplane.
                1. -2
                  9 November 2019 18: 49
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Do you like introducing new entities into the debate?

                  Hmm, did not pay attention. Perhaps you are right.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  the Germans stormed the columns of the Allies almost to the very end.

                  They also bomb the headquarters. This is a very famous story about Patton, Spaats, Tedder and Messer.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  And this, in turn, is the merit of the Allied aviation

                  Yes. The merit is in the isolation of the theater of operations from the sea.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  P-40 and Hurricane Auxiliary Tasks? ... regular battles with enemy fighters ..

                  That is the problem. They provided support (since they were no longer suitable for anything), but they were poorly suited for battles with Messers. Greetings from Hans-Joachim Marcel.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  There’s Bolt, it’s not half but one and a half times cheaper.

                  Let's think a little more and it will be 97K / 83K. Yes, it does. Only Mustang V / S became a relatively good and relatively inexpensive aircraft of the Army Air Force.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  But is his role great there?

                  Nothing is better.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Although they stormed their own troops, this is with frightening effectiveness.

                  Agree, not a plane issue. It was these episodes that the Americans went to good use, in the 44th, this was all just very good (except for strategists in tactical operations).
                  Quote: Engineer
                  then I can once again state that cost-effectiveness is unimportant.

                  Americans have a different perception of value. It was effective in an important situation for Americans.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  just so-so plane.

                  Twenty five again. He is bad like all twin-engine vs single-engine. He is good at tasks for which single-engine is not enough. This is a minority of the tasks, but they exist, and for them they also made planes.
                  1. 0
                    9 November 2019 19: 10
                    Quote: tesser
                    It is bad like all twin-engine vs single-engine.

                    Oleg, started the cartoon again?
                    1. -2
                      9 November 2019 19: 13
                      Quote: DrVintorez
                      Oleg, started the cartoon again?

                      Are you talking about Kaptsov? No, they didn’t guess. I didn’t think that I could be confused with him.

                      PS. I look, every single one of my comments, even completely neutral, are neatly mumbled. It seems like a fan has wound up.
                      1. 0
                        9 November 2019 19: 14
                        the same ahem .. adequate.
                      2. -4
                        9 November 2019 19: 19
                        Quote: DrVintorez
                        same ahem

                        No, what are you. We have a completely different agenda. I am indifferent to the idea of ​​rocket launchers.

                        Quote: DrVintorez
                        Are you against all Russian again?

                        Exactly the opposite. I’m drowning against the Americans, who with their vaunted industrial power turned out to be before the 44th year with the P-40, which as a fighter is no better than LaGG from shit and branches Spanish suites and plywood.
      2. +1
        9 November 2019 21: 10
        Good afternoon! Tell me, please, Jag - who is this?
        1. -3
          9 November 2019 21: 21
          juggernaut.

          One of the "nicknames" of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
          1. 0
            9 November 2019 21: 30
            Thank you!
    2. 0
      11 November 2019 14: 17
      I think comment writers do not need to bother with the cost-effectiveness criterion. The cost is clear. It consists of the cost of R&D, production and operating costs before decommissioning. machines as a result of damage, physical or moral wear. Efficiency is determined very conditionally and depends on many factors. Specialized universities have a course "Probabilistic assessment of system reliability and combat effectiveness" but even there not everything is taken into account.
      1. +1
        11 November 2019 19: 43
        Yes, no one bothered. Got data on the price and tried to correlate with the contribution to the common cause. In a first approximation. That's all.
  16. Alf
    +7
    9 November 2019 16: 29
    It was just such a tradition among Americans to start with the letter D.

    About the P-51A, P-51B, P-51C, P-47B, P-47C, P-40B, P-40C, the author did not hear anything?
  17. 0
    9 November 2019 17: 04
    On photos 7 and 10 are very non-standard R-38. In 7 photos, the wings have thickenings after the motor (apparently testing something), and in 10 photos the beams are raised higher above the ground.
  18. +2
    9 November 2019 17: 58
    Duralumin and two engines. Expensive to produce and expensive to lose.
    And to control two motors with their propeller pitch and compressors is not for the average pilot, especially in the heat of battle.
    Preparation for the second flight takes longer - two engines, two compressors.
    Damage Vulnerability - A bullet or anti-aircraft fragment in the compressor and aircraft is defective.
    The Pacific Ocean is not an indicator for us. For us, the indicator - Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk - air battles with a large number of sorties and air battles.
    I think Lightning would have suffered a catastrophic defeat in these aerial battles.
    1. -2
      9 November 2019 18: 54
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      For us, the indicator is Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk

      Some kind of crazy argument. Yes, the Americans did not make planes for the Kuban. They did not fight in the Kuban.
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      in these aerial battles, the Lightning would have suffered a catastrophic defeat.

      You attach it on the wrong side. Against Soviet aircraft - slow, non-high, poorly diving - Lightning on a free hunt, as well as on TO, would become an angel of death.
      1. -1
        9 November 2019 19: 12
        and I watch olezhka, are you again against all Russian? that the branch of the handed planes in the Wartander did not enter?
      2. +1
        9 November 2019 20: 20
        Quote: tesser
        Quote: pro100y.belarus
        For us, the indicator is Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk

        Some kind of crazy argument. Yes, the Americans did not make planes for the Kuban. They did not fight in the Kuban.
        Quote: pro100y.belarus
        in these aerial battles, the Lightning would have suffered a catastrophic defeat.

        You attach it on the wrong side. Against Soviet aircraft - slow, non-high, poorly diving - Lightning on a free hunt, as well as on TO, would become an angel of death.


        The war is not waged for the sake of war, but for the sake of victory.
        Land is occupied and liberated by ground troops, and aviation only contributes to this in one way or another. A combat aircraft should be considered as a weapon that is as cheap as possible, the least technologically advanced in production and maintenance, and the most deadly for the enemy.
        The fiercest air battles were fought precisely on the Eastern Front and their outcome influenced the outcome of World War II as a whole. That is why I consider the effectiveness of combat vehicles from the point of view of Stalingrad, the Kuban and Kursk.
        The American M-16 rifle is good at shooting ranges, but in the jungle of Vietnam the AK-47 turned out to be invincible.
        The P-38 Lightning is a good machine, but it was not a determining factor in the outcome of air battles.
        Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire, Zero, Yak-9, La-5FN, P-39 "Airacobra" - these are the determining factors of victory.
        And the P-38 "Lightning" is just an addition to it, like many others.
        1. -6
          9 November 2019 20: 51
          Quote: pro100y.belarus
          A combat aircraft should be considered as a weapon that is as cheap as possible, the least technologically advanced in production and maintenance, and the most deadly for the enemy.

          Some kind of meaningless slogan. The aircraft must meet the requirements of the customer and maximize the strengths of the industry. Lightning had everything in order with both. The fact that the customer was not quite right is another matter.
          Quote: pro100y.belarus
          The fiercest air battles were fought precisely on the Eastern Front and their outcome influenced the outcome of World War II as a whole.

          True or not, the Americans don't care deeply about that. They make planes for themselves, not for the Eastern Front. From the point of view "for themselves" they had a lot of mistakes, but Lightning is not one of them.
          Quote: pro100y.belarus
          from the point of view of Stalingrad, the Kuban and Kursk.

          Curtiss-Wright CW-21 DEMON, Bell P-77
          Quote: pro100y.belarus
          The American M-16 rifle is good at shooting ranges, but in the jungle of Vietnam the AK-47 turned out to be invincible.

          M16 was good in Vietnam, until it began to engage in American thieves. Mass only executions butchering will save America.
          Quote: pro100y.belarus
          Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire, Zero, Yak-9, La-5FN, P-39 "Airacobra"

          3 out of 7 aircraft, as you can easily see, did not bring victory to their country. Another customer fused into second-hand right there.

          Again. American aviation, especially fighter land, had many drawbacks. But
          1. They have nothing to do with the problems and tasks of the Red Army.
          2. Despite these disadvantages, both Arnold and King had incredible power by the 44th year. If in the land / sea the Germans / Japanese were still fluttering somehow, then in the sky it’s zero, just zero. Money and industry decide more in the sky than in other places.
          1. +4
            9 November 2019 21: 15
            Once again, I am convinced that there is no point in arguing with the celestials of the American aviation industry, they will just troll you over.
            However, I will remain in my opinion. I left it at the genetic level, from my grandfather.
            And this is the main difference from the opinion of cosmopolitans on the Russian site.
            By the way, Kozhedub's air division on the MiG-15 in Korea gave good kicks to the "most advanced in the world" American aviation. The same would have happened from the Luftwaffe, if they had not been "thinned out" by the Soviet Red Army Air Force on the eastern front.
            War is not a flight simulator.
            1. -6
              9 November 2019 21: 27
              Quote: pro100y.belarus
              they’ll just troll you over.

              This is said by the person who, when discussing Lightning, trumps either Vietnam or Korea.
              Quote: pro100y.belarus
              if they had not been "thinned out" by the Soviet Red Army Air Force on the Eastern Front.

              No thanks as usual. Just Spaats and 8VA pulled almost 4/5, EMNIP, German fighter aircraft into themselves in the air defense of the Reich.
    2. Alf
      +2
      9 November 2019 19: 17
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      Damage Vulnerability - A bullet or anti-aircraft fragment in the compressor and aircraft is defective.

      Applies to any aircraft.
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      And to control two motors with their propeller pitch and compressors is not for the average pilot, especially in the heat of battle.

      What problems ? Handles are grouped in pairs.
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      Preparation for the second flight takes longer - two engines, two compressors.

      Two teams of mechanics work simultaneously. Not ?
    3. 0
      14 December 2019 23: 59
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      The Pacific Ocean is not an indicator for us. For us, the indicator - Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk - air battles with a large number of sorties and air battles.


      Unfortunately, the Americans could not tell the Japanese that the Pacific Ocean is not an indicator for us. They were forced to fight where they were attacked. And there, the use of Soviet fighters (with their insignificant range by Pacific standards and an abundance of wooden parts actively rotting in a tropical climate) would have become a disaster.
  19. +2
    9 November 2019 18: 12
    Quote: Ural-4320
    On photos 7 and 10 are very non-standard R-38. In 7 photos, the wings have thickenings after the motor (apparently testing something), and in 10 photos the beams are raised higher above the ground.

    Photo 7 shows a P-38 that underwent flight tests of wing profiles. The plane had its own name, "Suordfish"
    Photo 10 shows the P-38E participating in the creation of a float version of a fighter for the Pacific LDP
    1. 0
      9 November 2019 18: 48
      Thanks for the information!
    2. +2
      9 November 2019 21: 28
      Check out my comments if you are interested in photos 7 and 10.
  20. 0
    9 November 2019 19: 04
    Quote: Ros 56
    He praises indirectly, so to speak, along with Lightning:
    "The Lightning. A very peculiar plane, which itself went down in history, and its designer Clarence Johnson received a lot of accolades.

    In general, everything that Johnson designed was not quite familiar in terms of form and content. Johnson put his mind and hands to many Lockheed products, but along with the P-38, you can also add the F-104 Starfighter and the SR-71 Black Bird scout to the original.

    Who would call them bad cars? "

    is it a praise? sorry
  21. +12
    9 November 2019 20: 19
    Not so long ago, we had an article about this aircraft, written by a battleship expert.
    Now we have an article by a publicist. And here are the articles Specialist not yet. Therefore, the Lockheed P-38 aircraft, which is most interesting from a technical point of view, is waiting for its harvester, who would tell the readers the story of Lightning without battleship and journalism.
    By the way, about "Lightning". At first, the R-38 was called Atlanta.
    The P-38 was never called Atlanta. Atlas is a mighty titan who holds the firmament on his shoulders. Atlanta is the capital of the state of Georgia. And the plane was called "Atalanta" - "unshakable". Lockheed had a tradition of naming planes after characters from Greek mythology. But then the British "lightning" won.
    There were export models at the beginning of the war. This aircraft was called the P-322 and was created for the UK and France based on British requirements. True, France never received its planes, as it ended. But these planes with pleasure accepted Britain.
    In general, the P-322 was weaker than the P-38, but in 1940 it was not fat, because the British took everything they were given on the lend-lease.
    Fighting on the R-322 was, of course, more difficult than on the R-38, which was faster, climbed higher, flew further, and even was heavier armed.
    On R-322 no one fought.
    In March 1940, the British and French, through the Anglo-French Purchasing Committee, ordered 667 P-38s in the amount of $ 100. Model 000F for France and Model 000B for Britain.
    At the same time, both French and British said. that there are no high-altitude air battles at the European theater and turbochargers for the European theater are an excess, therefore, the Allison V-1710-C15 engine is quite enough.
    In June 1940, when France, as the author says, "ended", the British agreed to accept the entire order and named the plane "Lightning". But that's not all. By this time, the British had already become imbued with the experience of the "Battle of Britain" and radically changed their views on the altitude of air battles. Therefore, they agreed to accept only 143 aircraft in the non-turbocharged version ("Lightning-I"), the remaining 524 ("Lightning-II") were to be produced as the American P-38E and the turbocharged engine - V-1710-F5L / -F5R.
    Then the British abandoned the turbocharged aircraft altogether, agreeing to take only three pieces for testing. While negotiations continued, Pearl Harbor and R-38 burst into Britain, except for three pieces, they didn’t get there, the question of their deliveries to Britain was closed.
    Thus, as part of the RAF P-38 did not fight, and 140 "castrated lightning" remained in the United States and were used as training.
    1. Alf
      +4
      9 November 2019 20: 34
      Quote: Undecim
      But there is no specialist article yet.

      But then the lieutenant came and spoiled everything ...
      Good evening ! Your comments are much more informative and truthful than the articles.
      1. +4
        9 November 2019 20: 54
        Good evening! The content of many articles on the site also surprises me. Well, it would be necessary to look for grains of information on foreign archives, shoveling tons of waste rock. But in this case, the opposite is true - information - a dime a dozen. Obviously, the reason is that publicists do not know how to write articles to communicate information, they are used to teaching and influencing public opinion.
        1. Alf
          +2
          9 November 2019 21: 13
          Quote: Undecim
          The content of many articles on the site also surprises me.

          Especially such "masterpieces".
          And only when airfields appeared on the continent, then “Thunderbolts” and “Mustangs” spread their wings.

          Apparently, the author did not know that they started flying to the full radius to accompany the strategists of Kobyl and Groma not when they moved to the continent, but when tanks of 568 liters began to cling to them.
    2. +4
      9 November 2019 20: 45
      Another point. Photo in the article. They are usually accompanied by signatures, since even a very good photo without a signature is just a picture. For an example - this photo.

      The aircraft depicted on it is experimental, P-38E Ser No. 41-1986. In 1942, the US Air Force came up with the idea to transfer the R-38 to the islands of the Pacific Theater to equip them with temporary floats while maintaining the full-time chassis. In order to test this option, P-38E Ser No. 41-1986 was built. Unlike production airplanes, it has a redesigned beam to protect elevators and directions from splashes, and a gondola has a place for an observing engineer. But by the end of 1942, the Navy had resolved the issue of logistics and did not fly with R-38 floats.
      1. +3
        9 November 2019 21: 28
        Another photo in the article.

        This is also an experimental aircraft, built in a single copy. P-38E Ser No. 41-2048 was converted in 1942 as a two-seater with an elongated central nacelle passing behind the trailing edge of the wing. This aircraft was built as a research aircraft to find ways to reduce drag. It was the only P-38 that had a complete dual control kit. Later, this experimental aircraft was equipped with enlarged wing sections with a laminar profile and boundary layer control.
  22. +1
    9 November 2019 22: 58
    Heh.
    I am pleased to read articles about this aircraft. IMHO - he is just very beautiful. For me, this is the first static model that I assembled from drawings without patterns, on a large scale. It turned out just a class. Before painting - painting, I then ruled everything out of inexperience.

    As for combat use, everything is very ambiguous.
    above they write "yes, he would have become the angel of death on the eastern front" - no. I wouldn't. He was immediately turned into a scout.

    The plane is strange but perhaps my favorite of the BB2 period

    Well, as usual: kamenti rule! More interesting than the article.
    1. -4
      9 November 2019 23: 13
      Quote: kytx
      above they write "yes, he would have become the angel of death on the eastern front"

      The above says "against the USSR". He was unsuccessful as a fighter against the Germans.
  23. 0
    10 November 2019 14: 30
    So to speak. The plane fell into the war due to the lack of anything more intelligible at the time the war began! For the Pacific Theater, the main thing is speed and range. No problem here. Everything is very problematic over Europe.
    Aircraft is a tool and its proper application allows you to realize the potential. If the application is not correct, then the potential is not realized.
    Therefore, in the Pacific Ocean strong samol showed himself. Over Europe where fast single-engine engines dominated, it showed itself to be so-so. How is a scout? Normally there was no Mosquito. How's the escort? While there were no bases on the mainland, it was also mediocre. How is the drummer? Well Duc Thunder then greatly superior.
    But I always ask one question! And if you stick Merlin on it?
  24. +2
    10 November 2019 16: 27
    In the past war, 3 samples of two-frame aircraft took part:
    • Multi-purpose two-seat twin-engine monoplane aircraft of a mixed design with a closed cockpit and retractable landing gear with a tail wheel Fokker G-1 Le-Fauscher (Netherlands),
    A total of 61 aircraft were built;
    • Single-seat twin-engine fighter,
    an all-metal monoplane with a closed cockpit and retractable landing gear with bow stance Lockheed P-38 Lightning (USA), 9923 aircraft built in total;
    • Heavy three-seat twin-engine night fighter, all-metal monoplane with closed cockpit and retractable landing gear with nose strut Northrop P-61 "Black Widow" (USA). A total of 706 vehicles were built.

    TTX
    Fokker G-1 P-38 Lightning P-61 Black Widow
    Wing span (m) 17,5 15,86 20,14
    Length (m) 11,5 11,62 15,11
    Motors and power (hp) 2x830 2x1425 2x2040
    Max takeoff weight (kg) 5000 9850 14 500
    Max speed (km/h) 464 660 587
    Prakt. ceiling (m). 9150 13400 10100
    Flight range (km) 1400 4150 885

    Of these, only the P-38 Lightning was released in large quantities and was most actively used on the European and Pacific theater of operations. The machine was distinguished by a number of innovative design solutions. In particular:

    • For the first time, a retractable landing gear with a nose strut was used;
    • Engines with turbochargers;
    • Double-beam aerodynamic configuration;
    • Boosters in the aileron control channel.

    The specified combination of factors makes Lightning the most effective and truly outstanding in its class aircraft of the Second World War.

    The design is well described in the technical and popular science literature:

    1. A.Kharuk “World War 2 fighters” The most complete encyclopedia. Moscow, Yauza-press, EKSMO, 2012.
    2. "Model Designer", Special issue No. 1
    "Aircraft of World War 2. Fighters 1939-1945.
    3. A. Medved "Fighter" Lightning "P-38" Lightning ". Victory of the American aces. Moscow, Yauza, EKSMO, 2014.
  25. 0
    10 November 2019 17: 54
    The article can be criticized or praised!
    But in the USSR, such a machine could not be!
    There was no production base!
    For admirers and comparisons with Soviet cars, I recall the duel over the BARI air base!
    1. -2
      10 November 2019 19: 28
      Quote: hohol95
      For admirers and comparisons with Soviet cars, I recall the duel over the BARI air base!

      Naturally, all such fights were held in those conditions for which the Yaki, and not the Mustangs, were created. Because Mustangs can go down to the Yaks if they want, but the Yaks can go up to the Mustangs - no.
      1. Alf
        +1
        10 November 2019 19: 52
        Quote: tesser
        Quote: hohol95
        For admirers and comparisons with Soviet cars, I recall the duel over the BARI air base!

        Naturally, all such fights were held in those conditions for which the Yaki, and not the Mustangs, were created. Because Mustangs can go down to the Yaks if they want, but the Yaks can go up to the Mustangs - no.

        After the war over Germany, ours called the P-38 to the battle, we ourselves were in the Yak (I don’t know any, no information). So ours were unpleasantly surprised that the 38th in turns was NOT WELL THAN YAK.
        1. -3
          10 November 2019 20: 22
          Quote: Alf
          that the 38th in turns was NOT WELL THAN YAK.

          6 tons there are 6 tons.
          P-38 was not created for such fights. For such fights, the Americans made the F8F, but later than necessary.
          Quote: Alf
          After the war over Germany

          In December 44, two new aircraft were in Europe for testing. The Yak-9U VK-107 completed them with great success, the P-80 started without any success. But this two generations the difference. If we add a continuous radar field, which the Americans learned to create against the Japanese in the 45th, then talking about the battles of Jacob with anyone completely loses its meaning.
          1. Alf
            +1
            11 November 2019 21: 08
            Quote: tesser
            In December 44, two new aircraft were in Europe for testing. The Yak-9U VK-107 completed them with great success, the P-80 started without any success. But these are two generations of difference. If we add a continuous radar field, which the Americans learned to create against the Japanese in the 45th, then talking about the battles of Jacob with anyone completely loses its meaning.

            What are you talking about? How does this relate to my report on Yak and Lightning?
            1. -3
              11 November 2019 22: 09
              Quote: Alf
              What are you talking about? How does this relate to my report on Yak and Lightning?

              The fact that Lightning for the 45th year was already a fair amount of junk. The actual level of aviation of the potential enemy was determined by completely different machines.
  26. 0
    6 December 2019 12: 39
    What to say? I didn’t fly, I didn’t see ..... Somewhere I read in the memoirs of those who fought on it that this plane was not bad for the Pacific theater of operations, but in Europe, alas, ah ....