P 38 Lightning | Lockheed single-seat, twin piston-engined fighter aircraft | Upscaled Video

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning is an American single-seat, twin piston-engined fighter aircraft that was used during World War II. Developed for the United States Army Air Corps by the Lockheed Corporation, the P-38 incorporated a distinctive twin-boom design with a central nacelle containing the cockpit and armament. Along with its use as a general fighter, the P-38 was used in various aerial combat roles, including as a highly effective fighter-bomber, a night fighter, and a long-range escort fighter when equipped with drop tanks. The P-38 was also used as a bomber-pathfinder, guiding streams of medium and heavy bombers, or even other P-38s equipped with bombs, to their targets. Used in the aerial reconnaissance role, the P-38 accounted for 90 percent of the aerial film captured over Europe
The P-38 was used most successfully in the Pacific Theater of Operations and the China-Burma-India Theater of Operations as the aircraft of America's top aces, Richard Bong (40 victories), Thomas McGuire (38 victories), and Charles H. MacDonald (27 victories). In the South West Pacific theater, the P-38 was the primary long-range fighter of United States Army Air Forces until the introduction of large numbers of P-51D Mustangs toward the end of the war. Unusual for an early-war fighter design, both engines were supplemented by turbosuperchargers. This gave the P-38 excellent high-altitude performance, making it one of the earliest Allied fighters capable of performing well at high altitudes. The turbosuperchargers also muffled the exhaust, making the P-38's operation relatively quiet. The Lightning was extremely forgiving in-flight and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll in early versions was low relative to other contemporary fighters; this was addressed in later variants with the introduction of hydraulically boosted ailerons. The P-38 was the only American fighter aircraft in large-scale production throughout American involvement in the war, from the Attack on Pearl Harbor to Victory over Japan Day.
The Lockheed Corporation designed the P-38 in response to a February 1937 specification from the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC). Circular Proposal X-608 was a set of aircraft performance goals authored by First Lieutenants Benjamin S. Kelsey and Gordon P. Saville for a twin-engined, high-altitude "interceptor" having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude." Forty years later, Kelsey explained that Saville and he drew up the specification using the word "interceptor" as a way to bypass the inflexible Army Air Corps requirement for pursuit aircraft to carry no more than 500 lb (230 kg) of armament including ammunition, and to bypass the USAAC restriction of single-seat aircraft to one engine. Kelsey was looking for a minimum of 1,000 lb (450 kg) of armament.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 10 in (11.53 m)
Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m)
Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.91 m)
Wing area: 327.5 sq ft (30.43 m2)
Aspect ratio: 8.26
Airfoil: root: NACA 23016; tip: NACA 4412
Empty weight: 12,800 lb (5,806 kg)
Gross weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 21,600 lb (9,798 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Allison V-1710 (-111 left hand rotation and -113 right hand rotation) V-12 liquid-cooled turbo-supercharged piston engine, 1,600 hp (1,200 kW) each WEP at 60 inHg (2.032 bar) and 3,000 rpm
Propellers: 3-bladed Curtiss electric constant-speed propellers (LH and RH rotation)
Performance
Maximum speed: 414 mph (666 km/h, 360 kn) on Military Power: 1,425 hp (1,063 kW) at 54 inHg (1.829 bar), 3,000 rpm and 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Cruise speed: 275 mph (443 km/h, 239 kn)
Stall speed: 105 mph (169 km/h, 91 kn)
Combat range: 1,300 mi (2,100 km, 1,100 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,300 mi (5,300 km, 2,900 nmi)
Service ceiling: 44,000 ft (13,000 m)
Rate of climb: 4,750 ft/min (24.1 m/s)
Lift-to-drag: 13.5
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/sq ft (261 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.26 kW/kg)
Drag area: 8.78 sq ft (0.82 m2)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0268
Armament
Guns:
1× Hispano M2(C) 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
4× M2 Browning machine gun 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns with 500 rpg.
Rockets: 4× M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) M8 rocket launchers; or:
Bombs:
Inner hardpoints:
2× 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs or drop tanks; or
2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs or drop tanks, plus either
4× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs; or
6× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
6× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs
Outer hardpoints:
10× 5 in (127 mm) HVARs (High Velocity Aircraft Rockets); or
2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
2× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs
#p38 #lightning #fighteraircraft

[@Dronescapes]

Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes and their stories, missions: kzbin.info/aero/PLBI4gRjPKfnNx3Mp4xzYTtVARDWEr6nrT

[@zanetusken]

I wouldn’t have been born without this plane. My grandfather retired Lt. Colonel fighter ace landed with one engine after 2 CKs.

[@Dronescapes]

👍👍👍

[@4catsnow]

The only military aircraft in US history to present admiral yamamoto with the bill for Pearl Harbor....A pinnacle moment for Lockheed.

[@darkknight1340]

The timing of the Yamamoto engagement was to the second,incredible flying.

[@badabumbadabing]

They were one minute early, but yeah, masterful dead reckoning.

[@4catsnow]

@@badabumbadabing All the way from the P-38 to the SR-71....and beyond...

[@boatingexplainedwithcapndr8359]

Well stated!

[@chrismair8161]

It took Charles Lindbergh to teach the pilots how to maximize the (Twin Forked Devil) and use it properly with out getting dead. As a (Contractor) "chuck" was forbidden from Combat Patrols. He did it anyway. Scored his 1 kill and shot any and everything that moved on the ground. He really loved Kelly Johnsons Toy!

[@ecombiz8]

In 1944 I was only 4 years old (a little young to be a pilot) As I grew up and learned about the airplanes in World War ll I always wanted to fly a P38. The best looking aircraft and so damn deadly.

[@nate61]

Without a doubt one of the best fighters ever of WW2 as some of the top fighter pilots all flying this aircraft

[@bobnewkirk7186]

Excellent! When I was a kid, our family Dr. was a P-51 pilot in WW2. His receptionist's husband was a P-38, (F5) pilot. We had some spirited conversations!

[@Idahoguy10157]

As an USAF medic one of my patients was a gentleman who flew P-38 photo recon in the South Pacific

[@SJR_Media_Group]

This break from traditional aircraft design was years ahead of it's closest rival. It was a 'cool' plane then, it's even 'cooler' now. What an amazing example of near perfect engineering. I would give anything to have a P-38 parked in my hanger.

[@americanfreedomlogistics9984]

also not a particularly “small” plane in my youth i’ve seen one on display at Lackland AFB

[@SJR_Media_Group]

@@americanfreedomlogistics9984 Lucky you, I have only seen photos

[@stewie5101]

If I was a fighter pilot in ww2, I’d want to be in a P-38

[@cpcattin]

If I was an attack plane in WW2 I’d be a P-38.

[@paulajones289]

Yes sir,me and you both. I love that plane.

[@franklinnorth7708]

Nice views of the Southern California landscape where Burt Rutan would later perfect many twin boom designs. Ernest K Gann once wrote, "The P38 wing would not hold enough ice to chill a cocktail" hence it's role limited to the tropics. The recon cameras used in the P 38 were later adapted for Medical use for Angiography, because of their high speed film changers, and large format film.

[@BogeyTheBear]

You are confusing that highball quote for the Liberator Express, the cargo-carrying variant of the Consolidated B-24.

[@acehandler1530]

"Flight Of The Phoenix" w/Jimmy Stewart - great movie. Always been a favorite of mine for another reason - I learned to make a paper version (from a 'Rupert' book) - took me about a year when I was 10 to figure it out from the schematic. My favorite paper airplane design - can glide all day from height and a touch of ailerons :-). Thanks for this!

[@BogeyTheBear]

22:25 Talking out the side of his mouth. The P-38 was indeed a clean airplane with a lot of power in each engine. The P-38 could make 200 mph on one engine (vmc was 120, so big margin there). And the only time a single-engine P-38 was unable to hold altitude is when the wheels _and_ the flaps are fully lowered.

[@user-dc8vr2gd2y]

In 1943 I was only 3 years old and no help to the war effort. I really like the P-38 Lighting that would have been my warplane of choice to fly.

[@44excalibur]

You can see how the P-38 turned out to be the early predecessor of the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle, with its twin engine, twin tail wing design.

[@Dronescapes]

Interesting

[@gort8203]

Seriously? OMG . . .

[@ozymandias1758]

Tricycle landing gear may have been it's greatest influence on future aircraft..

[@user-ju2yz5hx6t]

Both of. America's leading WWII Aces flew P-38s. Unlike the P-51, it was not susceptible to the dangers of a high-speed stall. Unfortunately, the counter-rotating props did make engine the critical engine in an engine out situation. I took a ride in the Statterbrained Kid in 1972.

[@roscoe8856]

Beautiful video! Finally, a good sound track. I usually hate the music takes away from the sound of the engines.

[@jd190d]

One of the problems with the P-38 is that it didn't have a heater. Most of the piston fighters didn't either ( I don't know of any that did) but being behind the engine transferred heat, the P-38 just got extremely cold in the cockpit when the weather was cold.

[@BogeyTheBear]

It had heaters. They just didn't work too well when you had to duct the warm air across the wings. In the older models, heat from the left engine went to the cockpit while the right engine was used to warm up the gun bay. That was part of the problem, splitting the available heat into two sections. In later models, the gun bay was heated electrically and warm air from the right engine was sent into the cockpit, which made things a little better.

[@stanmo4331]

@@BogeyTheBear I believe the improvements were made in the J-25 and L models. Designing a plane in Van Nuys to fly in England didn't help! :)

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

One reason for the lack of heat was that some units, mostly in the 8th AF, failed to operate the engines correctly. It made the engines run so cold that they performed poorly, were less reliable, and provided nearly no heat to the cockpit.

[@ronjon7942]

Nice work

[@Dronescapes]

Thanks

[@manricobianchini5276]

Actually, the F4u Corsair was the fastest fighter in the early years of WW2.

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

Do you think you could do a video on the MH-53 Pave Low?

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

She sure is a beauty 👍

[@thegreatdominion949]

The P-38 might have been the fastest American made recon plane in the war, but not the fastest period. Late war PR versions of the Spitfire, particularly those with Rolls Royce Griffin engines, were considerably faster than the F4s and F5s and had higher service ceilings.

[@thegreatdominion949]

@@hardcorehistory9165 Just trying to counteract the natural tendencies of people like yourself I guess.

[@redeyeracing2]

Charles Lindbergh did extensive work extending range

[@beyoungheouneoh]

I am in this big fan 0:22

[@ronaldschoolcraft8654]

That's V-1710...

[@Cody2nd]

My grandfather flew his f-5 lightning (lucky Lu) over 60 missions unarmed at tree top level. They could never touch him. I wouldn’t be here if they did. His brother “Thrasher” flew a p47D named Christine, and was shot down and KIA.

[@RobertPaskulovich-fz1th]

I was born too late and missed out on all the excitement.

[@roberthutchison8197]

I wonder how many pilots were saved because the Lightning had two engines?

[@johnnycash578]

@ 10:00 it sure is LMAO!!!!!

[@hotironaircraftshop]

V-1710 not V-1700.

[@BogeyTheBear]

So-named for the displacement, 1710 cubic inches (28 liters).

[@brookeshenfield7156]

Anyone know what the bomber version at 2:24 is all about?

[@BogeyTheBear]

'Mickey Mouse' radar bomber. For bombing through overcast. You may be wondering what kind of damage one P-38 dropping a pair of bombs off its drop tank pylons can do, but this bomber P-38 would be leading a formation of P-38 fighters who were also carrying bombs. They dropped their bombs the moment they saw this leader release their bombs.

[@brookeshenfield7156]

@@BogeyTheBear Mahalo for that!

[@tucsonorganist]

It would be interesting to see what difference RR Merlin engines would have made with regard to power and reliability.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

A design study was commissioned by Kelly Johnson. First, the Merlins simply do not fit. Massive modifications would be required. Compared to the Allison V-1710 paired with the General Electric B series turbochargers, the Merlin is a *downgrade.* Installing Merlins would substantially reduce performance in every single category, climb rate, top speed, acceleration rate, maneuverability, high altitude performance, service ceiling, and range. Had a friend, Captain Art Heiden, who flew both, in combat. He said the P-51 with the Merlin had every bit as much engine trouble as the P-38. Further, the P-51 could never climb as well as the P-38.

[@JAlucard77]

THE GERMANS CALLED IT THE FORKED TAIL DEVIL.

[@americanfreedomlogistics9984]

in it’s time it was probably comparable to the A-10 of today

[@todiathink8864]

No. The A10 is strictly for ground support. Less than useless in a dogfight.

[@gort8203]

Seriously? OMG . . .

[@frankenwaifu8092]

@@gort8203 No. The Lightning is a quick heavy fighter meant to intercept bombers but had the added bonus of keeping up with a lot of enemy aircraft in dogfights. The A10 on the other hand is a slow ground support craft (and a terrible one at that) with bad visibility, no radar, and a gun that is all bark and no bite. The only thing an A10 is good for is strafing a column of tanks that are sitting still.

[@josephianstroet7988]

I confirm that i so holes under the Motor engine en on the plane 3 Numbers 631🗽🌐📽️

[@wadesaleeby2172]

How much better would the Lightning ⚡ been if they were outfield with the Merlin Rolls Royce engines and super chargers like the P 51?! 😳

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

It would have been *far worse,* not better. The Merlin would drastically reduce range, climb rate, speed, acceleration, critical altitude, service ceiling, and maneuverability. The P-38 didn't need different engines. It needed better propellors. Lockheed installed and tested the Hamilton Standard hydrostatic high activity paddle props, it substantially improved performance in every area. It also reduced maintenance requirements, and electrical system load. The War Production Board refused to allow Lockheed to use those props not once, but twice, despite the USAAF Material Command specifically requesting that exact combination. Lockheed had a fighter that performed to late 1944 levels in April of 1943. Lockheed could have been producing twice as many P-38's with killer performance, if not for the short sighted foolish decisions of the War Production Board.

[@barrybristow4646]

Me a beaufighter. bazz

[@killingfields1424]

Gas guzzler with compresibility issues on a dive

[@BogeyTheBear]

The P-38 was capable of ferry flights across the Atlantic, and dive flaps kept pilots out of those compressibility stalls.

[@MG-zd6cw]

Charles Lindberg visited the Pacific Islands during WW2 and found a way to exponentially save more fuel.

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

The P-38 had the greatest combat radius of any Allied fighter in World War II. It was the P-38 that first appeared in numbers over Berlin, in February of 1944, and it had flown the escort route the entire mission.

[@MichaelMiller-op8fe]

Nice try ,it didn't have twin piston engines it had TWO Giant multi-piston engines. Do you research, get your title right.

[@jd190d]

By definition twin piston engines means 2 separate piston engines. If it said it had 2 piston engines, that would be potentially incorrect. Twin piston engines is correct.

[@gort8203]

You never heard the term twin engine aircraft? Surprising for an aviation enthusiast.

[@cadthunkin]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Looks like we found an aviation Karen, lol

[@jd190d]

@@MysticalDragon73Ad Hominem attacks are the way to go when you have no substantive argument as a response.