Lockheed F-4A Lightning

[72modeler]

I found this photo just now and thought it might be of interest as a modeling project- get out your RS kits! I think it would be handsome in the RAAF colors and markings, photo caption stated it served with No. 1 PRU and later No. 87 Squadron, but I'm no authority on RAAF units, so you might want to confirm that. Looks to be pretty clean and has external tanks. Crikey, she's a beaut, as they say!

Mike

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WWIIplanes/comments/4x5sd4/lockheed_f4a_lightning_a553_pictured_while/

 

[Ed Russell]

https://www.redroomodels.com/red-roo-resin-148/red-roo-raaf-p-38-lightning-pr-conversion-148/

 

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

https://www.redroomodels.com/red-roo-resin-148/red-roo-raaf-p-38-lightning-pr-conversion-148/

 

That should really interest the 1/48 builders! Not my scale, but didn't Hasegawa and Academy both make early P-38's?

Mike

[Work In Progress]

Yes, and unusually I would take the Academy over the Hasegawa. They are both good representations but the Academy was easier to build square and true.

[Ed Russell]

That's what we thought and the conversion works best with the Glacier Girl boxing. Best combination of plastic parts.

[leyreynolds]

If memory serves, the RAAF PR Lightnings were field conversions of P-38's and thus not identical to those F-4's manufactured by Lockheed.

[Magpie22]

This aircraft was both a P-38E and an F-4-1.

1. It was born at Lockheed as a P-38E, 41-2144, (manufacturer's serial 5362). 
2. It was officially received by the USAAF as a P-38E on 1 Jan 1942.
3. In March 1942, it was earmarked for conversion to an F-4.
4. In late April, it arrived at the Lockheed modification center at the B-6 plant in Dallas, where it was converted to an F-4, along with another 98 aircraft, between April and August 1942.
5. On return to the USAAF in June, it was officially re-designated as an F-4-1.
6. By November, it had made its way to San Francisco, where it was embarked for shipment to the USAAF Fifth Air Force in Australia.
7. Australia had received two F-4 aircraft in August 1942, but one was lost soon after and, in February 1943, 41-2144 was turned over to the RAAF as a replacement. The RAAF received it at Eagle Farm Airport near Brisbane and assigned it the stores reference number A55-3.
8. By late March it was in service with No. 1 PRU, based at Coomalie, south of Darwin.
9. Although suffering from problems related to the intercoolers, it saw continual ops until August when it required a 240 hourly check. The overhaul of turbo-charged aircraft was not an area in which the RAAF had much expertise and the aircraft was sent to the 5th US Air Force at Eagle farm for the work.
10. The aircraft was received back at No. 1 PRU in early November, but lasted just over a month. On 10 December 1943, the pilot was forced to land with the undercarriage retracted. The pilot escaped without injury but, a fire broke out in the port supercharger and the A/C was damaged beyond repair.

There were a series of shots taken at the same time as that posted by Mike. I have attached some. She's not quite as clean as Mike suggests. At the time of the photos, (circa mid 1943), note the replacement intercooler on the starboard wing, and the usual exhaust deposits behind the superchargers, The letters 'L' and 'R' have been added to the inboard side of the appropriate nacelle as an 'aid memoire' for the pilot in an emergency situation. She also carried three aerial wires from the canopy, one to each fin and one to the center of the tailplane.

 

In 1/48 scale, the Academy kit is the best way to go. The Red Roo conversion has a few problems with the placing and the size of the camera ports and, i my opinion it is easier to modify the nose and cut your own camera ports. However, the decals included in the Red Roo conversion are worth the cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A55-3 received a new paint job as part of the overhaul in Sep/Oct, as can be seen in the shots below. 

 

 

 

 

[72modeler]

Magpie 22,

 

Wow- incredible photos of A55-3! You can sure see the replacement panels where the RH intercooler was replaced. I wish you hadn't posted these, as now I'm gonna hafta get another RS F-4 kit and build her- that is one handsome early P-38! Fortunately for me, P-38F Glacier Girl is based here where I live, and I have a ton of walkaround photos of her taken at our bi-annual airshow- she sounds so sweet with those muffled Allisons! Slightly off-topic, but here are some links to her that you might enjoy. Thank you for sharing that detailed history and photos.

Mike

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlrvbHTdmE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGXGmow9se4

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl#/media/File:Lockheed_P-38E_Lightning_"Glacier_Girl",_Chino,_California.jpg

 

 

[Magpie22]

Hi Mike,

I was lucky enough to see 'Glacier Girl' fly not long after her rebuild. I've always had a fascination for the P-38. The basic design philosophy seems to have been to make the fastest fighter you can. Make it complicated, big, poor maneuverability, and expensive - none of those matter - just make it fast. I also remember Lefty Gardner and Gary Levitz throwing #13 and # 38 around the pylons - aah, those engines, so beautiful!

Modelling wise, I'm currently building a couple of Cleveland racers, #27, 'Teterboro Special', and #25, both highly modified with clipped wings, T/P and no superchargers. Want to do a few others, including #88 which raced in the Bendix X-country race fitted with wingtip drop tanks.

Peter M

[Work In Progress]

4 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

The basic design philosophy seems to have been to make the fastest fighter you can. Make it complicated, big, poor maneuverability, and expensive - none of those matter - just make it fast. 

The design philosophy and intentions were far more rounded than speed. They could easily have made it faster if they'd disregarded the other high priorities evident in the basic design.

 

The military negatives in the P-38 design, the prices they chose to pay to achieve what they wanted to achieve, are as you suggest, in complexity, expense and large size.

 

But the military positives,  which were there  from the start, were not just that it was fast, but also heavily-armed, with a high rate of climb, high celing, and inherent potential for long range and patrol endurance. 

[Magpie22]

6 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

The design philosophy and intentions were far more rounded than speed. They could easily have made it faster if they'd disregarded the other high priorities evident in the basic design.

 

The military negatives in the P-38 design, the prices they chose to pay to achieve what they wanted to achieve, are as you suggest, in complexity, expense and large size.

 

But the military positives,  which were there  from the start, were not just that it was fast, but also heavily-armed, with a high rate of climb, high celing, and inherent potential for long range and patrol endurance. 

I must be more careful when making light hearted comments. I thought that I put a 'smiley' in there, but apparently not. Perhaps I had in mind Ben Kelsey's comment when he was asked about the performance of the XP-38. He is quoted as saying. "....it goes like hell".

 

Of course, after many years experience in the industry, I am well aware that there are many factors, often conflicting, influencing the design of an aircraft. If Hibbard and Johnson had been only concerned about speed, they would have sacrificed fuel capacity, chosen a much thinner high speed aerofoil section, and avoided the compression problems suffered by the aircraft.

 

Next time I make a light hearted comment I promise to put in appropriate smiley. 😁  OK?👍

Peter M

[Michael louey]

If you haven't seen it, there is a Lockheed site for Australian aircraft - It has a lot of detail and photos of all the RAAF P38's

 

http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/lightning/1pru.htm

 

Regards

 

Michael

Edited May 30, 2019 by Michael louey