During World War II, the Lockheed developed a long-range version of its famous fighter P-38 Lightning, however, due to technical problems the project was canceled. The link below provides a collection of interesting photos of the plane and a question: If the plane had entered service, have reached the success of the P-38? What do you think? Visit the link, see the photos and answer this question through a poll at the end of the post.
http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/lockheed-xp-58-chain-lightning.html
Best Regards.
By: J Boyle - 1st December 2015 at 15:21
Lockheed did well with the P-38 series by improving it in incremental steps. The XP-49 was a disappointment but I see the XP-58 as a disaster! Look at the size of it, not only 37mm cannons forward but a 75mm too – along with a rear gunner with four .50 calibre machine guns. What were they (or whoever wrote the specification requirements) thinking?
With that firepower it’s a wonder they didn’t put it in the “Attack” category with the Douglas A-26 Invader and the Beech XA-38 Grizzly…a Beech 18 looking aircraft with a75 mm gun and six .50 cal machine guns, four in a remote top turret. Powered by twin 2,300 hp engines it has a gw of 36,000 lbs and a top speed of 330 mph. Oh oh, I probably gave the OP his next subject for another “secret” warplane. 🙂
By: Junk Collector - 1st December 2015 at 14:49
a sort of DIY water bed save £££££££’s
By: Meddle - 1st December 2015 at 13:47
Seems to be a badge of honour over there.
By: Junk Collector - 1st December 2015 at 13:39
what’s wrong with wetting the bed ? everyone does it, don’t they
By: Meddle - 1st December 2015 at 12:55
Ah he does reply you know, on the ARMY RUMOUR SERVICE forum he has actually replied to comments!
I went on to that forum once. All I saw was blokes talking about wetting the bed and making ‘maps of Africa’ whilst stationed at various bases. The political bent was somewhere between the UKIP-lite stance of the General Discussion section of this forum and the far-right comments section of the Guido Fawkes blog. Did I miss anything along the way? I didn’t even know they had an aviation section.
By: Bob - 1st December 2015 at 12:39
Ahh, the mysterious PPI fighter – can’t wait for his discovery of that gem…
By: Junk Collector - 1st December 2015 at 11:23
At least it isn’t about PPI !,
By: Moggy C - 1st December 2015 at 10:03
As you have probably gathered I do get bored with the constant whinging about this guy’s business model too.
1) Nobody takes a single penny off any forum member viewing his thread
2) He does not get paid directly for any forum member viewing his thread
3) Any forum member viewing his threads will be represented on the audience figures he uses to solicit advertising
4) I do not know if he charges a flat rate for the ads that appear, or if he hosts them on a ‘pay per click-through’ basis. Neither I’d suggest does anyone else here, neither do I care.
It’s a resource provided free to use, exactly like this Forum.
Moggy
Moderator
By: daveg4otu - 1st December 2015 at 09:13
Paid per click! Who cares?
The guy posts some interesting pictures , very often pictures that have seldom seen the light of day.
Good luck to him and thanks to him for actually bothering to post here in spite of the whingers.
By: Beermat - 1st December 2015 at 08:44
Yes, a lot of time and money was devoted to working around the basic design error of a massively flow-disturbing, compressibility-drag-inducing and hopeless double-convex wing-fuselage junction. This is why the P-38 didn’t gain much speed throughout it’s development, and Kelly Johnson called compressibility a ‘brick wall’. The XP-58 may have carried the extra weight, but it was still faster. No ‘brick wall’ there..
By: Rosevidney1 - 30th November 2015 at 17:58
Lockheed did well with the P-38 series by improving it in incremental steps. The XP-49 was a disappointment but I see the XP-58 as a disaster! Look at the size of it, not only 37mm cannons forward but a 75mm too – along with a rear gunner with four .50 calibre machine guns. What were they (or whoever wrote the specification requirements) thinking?
By: Beermat - 30th November 2015 at 17:38
Still, this one-off does show something interesting. Lockheed quietly made the change that they should have made to the P-38 to get around all of the vibration/compressibility issues (and not an under-wing barn door in sight) 🙂
By: Bob - 30th November 2015 at 13:14
A break? I thought you were automatons. 😀
By: Moggy C - 30th November 2015 at 08:00
Where’s Moggy with his correction fluid when you need him…
Even Mods have to take a break – I was off watch, but have returned and sub-edited the title as per normal.
Those are yet more images I haven’t seen before. Interesting.
Moggy
By: J Boyle - 30th November 2015 at 01:14
He just ought to come clean and have a pay per view service for the aviation history newcomers who haven’t seen the stuff he peddles…there will always be a few.
That way, he could quit getting free advertising from otherwise honest forums.
By: Bob - 29th November 2015 at 21:26
Where’s Moggy with his correction fluid when you need him…
And he’s on ARRSE? Is nowhere sacred?…
By: Zac Yates - 29th November 2015 at 20:15
I’ve read this user gets paid for clicks, so I’m not going in there – I’m guessing the article is about the XP-58 Chain Lightning?
By: sticky847 - 29th November 2015 at 19:25
Ah he does reply you know, on the ARMY RUMOUR SERVICE forum he has actually replied to comments! Exactly the same post but different name.
By: SADSACK - 29th November 2015 at 14:45
Never heard of that one, thanks for sharing!
Sign In
November 29, 2015 at 10:58 am