Carrier Islands

Keith Willshaw wrote:


How would you like to have to turn a fighter to the left to avoid a
Japanese fighter when you have two 1200-hp Allisons pouring on the
torque to the right? This was an all-but-impossible task.



You couldnt out turn a Japanes fighter in any Lightning
and the RAF never tried to do so.


Well, the RAF never even tried to fly a Lightning in combat, so
the argument is rather irrelevant in this case one way or the
other. I must note, however, that at high speeds many allied
aircraft could out maneuver most Japanese aircraft due to their
relatively poor high speed characteristics and slower top speeds.


the export Lightning was all but useless as a result of two

engines turning the same way;


That was not the reason the RAF rejected them however, they
did so because of the extremely poor performance achievable
with the engines supplied. I am aware that was what the British
purchasing commission ordered but the factory guaranteed a
minimum speed of 400 mph at 16,900 ft with the original engines.
As the aircraft as delievered could barely achieve 350 mph it
was rejected by the RAF.

Lockheed's representative claimed that the aircraft met the
speed specifications, and the only thing that prevented a
very nasty court battle turned out to be the entry of the
United States into the war, at which point they simply swept
up all of the aircraft on the order. I believe that the two
main reasons were changed British requirements (high altitude
becoming much more important in the interim) and the
cash-based terms of the contract. I may be mistaken, as I
don't have the reference handy, but I believe that Ethel's
book stated that the British decided to reject the order
before receiving the first aircraft for performance testing.
In addition to the above, they were apparently much
put off the two-engine interceptor/fighter idea by
their experience with twin engined fighters they had
already seen in action (Bf-110 leaps to mind). One
other complaint (not covered in the contract
specifications) which was voiced was the existence
of high speed buffet. This appeared in the XP, IIRC,
and was diagnosed as due to prop wash on the inward
turning engines, which was eliminated by swapping them
side to side but which the Lightning I resurrected
with its single engine rotation scheme. This also
could be the buffet problem which was later solved
by the addition of the leading edge fillets at the
central fuselage joint.


The USAAF took over the 140 aircraft remaining and even after
fitting handed engines relegated them to a training role.

They still didn't have superchargers, and various systems
differences between Lightning I's and stock versions would have
required something akin to a full rebuild, making them
unsuitable as service birds (too expensive and time consuming
to rework, and requiring a different logistics chain than
what was going to be found in all the service birds). The
Lightning IIs were almost identical to the American versions
on the production line, and were rather easily reworked as
P-38G's, IIRC.

Mike