Ok Waynos, I realize I might have offended the "Britishness" of DH's designs, that was not my intention. Your explanation for influence is what my idea of bloodline is.
Anyway, I will rephrase:
If someone asked Lockheed to design a jet P-38. What are the chances that they will repaint a Vampire and say "We're done!" ? I would.

I don't understand why you think it has anything to do with Britishness, or being offended? I have no problem, for example. in acknowledging that the design of the V-bombers took a huge amount from Germany after WW2 (Victor = Heinkel/Arado, Vulcan = Lippisch/Junkers/BMW designs etc. Not to mention our hopeless attempts at transonic swept wings in the 1940's when the Supermarine 510 is compared with the MiG 15 and F-86. No, national pride has no part in what I was trying to explain.

I am simply showing you the root of the Vampires design, and that it was not influenced by the P-38 at all, but that similar ideas were already in circulation before the P-38 was created. Given that the one I showed looks the same as the Vampire from above (propellers apart) and was designed by the Airspeed division of De Havilland, don't you think it more likely that this was the root of its design than an American plane which didn't exist at the time?

Besides, who is to say that a Jet P-38, had it been attempted, might not have tried to keep the engines in the booms? It would have been a far simpler conversion than a brand new fuselage because the undercarriage would still be accomodated in the same way and the structural design of the airframe would be unchanged. It might have turned out with the jets exhausting underneath the boom which might be raised up very slightly, like the Yak 15's underbelly exhaust? (Sounds like a good idea for a model)




[edit on 1-8-2006 by waynos]

Waynos, you're blowing this way out of proportion and proving me wrong on things I haven't even said
If you don't want me to mention the Vampire in the same sentence with the P-38, show me a photo of what YOUR impression of a jet P-38 might look like, and if it looks more like a P-38 than a Vampire, I'll be the first to admit it.

Well, I have described in my previous post how it might have been done if Lockheed took the easy route and just replaced the piston units with Jets using the same structure. However you could also be right that they would replace the central nacelle with a more DH.110 like one with two jet engines in it, anything is possible in such a theoretical version and yes, this would resemble a Vampire from a reasonable distance.

However that is not really what I have tried to get across, what I have attempted to disprove is this, which is something you did say;

You have lots of jet clones of the P-38, I can't think of another prop fighter that has influenced jet planes as much.

I think I have demonstrated that that the Vampire/Venom/Sea Vixen family are not cloned off the P-38 or even influenced by it. Thats not blowing anything up out of proportion, its just answering your assertion.

If there is anything in my past posts that has gone beyond what you said then I apologise, I am quick enough to pull people up for misrepresenting what I say so I do not intend to do it to anyone else.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by waynos]

I actually wrote a very long post in which among other things I apologized for the word 'clones' which is not appropriate here. Just before sending it my PC crashed so I had to write it again, but I had to leave so I ended up with the short version (the 'britishness' post )
About your idea to put 2 jets in place of the props, I'm not sure.... Jets don't have torque effects so there's no point cancelling one engine's torque effect with the other. Having in mind that putting weight away from the centerline would also affect roll rates and G tolerance adversely, don't think it's such a good idea. I still think that the Vampire is the perfect "jet P-38" (although not influenced by it )
And the fact that when they needed 2 engines (on the Vixen) they put them behind the cockpit, proves I think that Lockheed would have done that same if they had to do a jet P-38.

I agree that would be the best and most likely way to do it, I was just saying a quicker and cheaper alternative way. You are right that this way would be bad for engine out assymetry but torque isn't really a consideration, it was just a way to get jets into the airframe without a complete structural redesign, the Gloster Meteor and Me 262 (but mainly the meteor) are good examples of designers simply putting the jets where the propellers would otherwise be, both aircraft might have benefitted from the engines being on the sides of the fuselage but designers just weren't quite ready to go there yet.

De Havilland actually designed a Jet powered Mosquito in which they simply replaced the Merlins with Nenes on the same mounting which was why I felt that Lockheed *might* (not would) have done the same thing.

PS, how did you like the u2u, hope it made you smile



[edit on 2-8-2006 by waynos]

heavy fighter are not best for intersepeter and not best for dog fighter.....

and i like mig-31

I gotta throw my money on the De Havilland Mosquito. For its era, it had no equal. It could dogfight, intercept (German V rockets at that!) , and carry a bomb load to top it off. And all for a few sheets of ply and balsa.

Originally posted by Browno
Heavy Fighters are mostly used in Interceptor and Dogfighting roles, They are the best and most powerful fighters ever built but they can be costly to run and maintain.

Here are some of them:

F-105 Thud, Sukhoi 15 Flagon, BAC Lightning, Sukhoi 27+, Mig 144, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-111 Aardvark, YF-23 Black Widow, FB/F-22 Raptor,
FB-23

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Browno]

wouldnt these be better known as air superiority? ive rarely heard the term heavy fighter

Its because the term "heavy fighter" is no longer utilized.

Originally posted by Browno
Heavy Fighters are mostly used in Interceptor and Dogfighting roles, They are the best and most powerful fighters ever built but they can be costly to run and maintain.

Here are some of them:

F-105 Thud, Sukhoi 15 Flagon, BAC Lightning, Sukhoi 27+, Mig 144, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-111 Aardvark, YF-23 Black Widow, FB/F-22 Raptor,
FB-23

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Browno]

Oops Browno, a bit more research neeed.

F-105 was a bomber, in much the same way that the F-117 is also a bomber. It was never an interceptor or A2A fighter of any sort. Likewise your inclusion of the F-111 and the, as yet unconfirmed, FB-23 in this class is also wrong. They are bombers too.

The BAC Lightning, on the other hand, was a single seat short range interceptor, not a heavy fighter by any definition. The RAF's 'heavy fighter' serving alongside the Lightning was first the Gloster Javelin and then the F-4 Phantom.

Maybe the term Fighter-bomber is more akin to havy-fighter..

Hawker Hunter, Jaguar ?

I would classify them like this:

Long Range Fighters: F-101 Voodoo, F-106 Delta Dart, YF-12A Blackbird, F-4 Phantom II, CF-105 Arrow, Mirage G8, MiG-23 "Flogger", MiG-25 "Foxbat", Su-9/11 "Fishpot", Su-15 "Flagon", La-250 Anakonda, Tu-28P "Fiddler", Yak-28P "Firebar", Shenyang J-8 "Finback, F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, Tornado ADV, Mirage 4000, MiG-31 "Foxhound", Su-27/30/33/35 "Flanker", F-22 Raptor, YF-23 Black Widow II, Suhoi T-50, Chengdu J-20

and

Supersonic Strike Aircraft: F-111 Fighting Aardvark, A-5 Vigilante, F-105 Thunderchief, F-107A, Yak-28 "Brewer", Su-7 "Fitter", Su-17/20/22 "Fitter", Su-24 "Fencer", MiG-27 "Flogger", Tornado IDS, SEPECAT Jaguar, Mirage F2, AJ37 Viggen, Mitsubishi F-1, Xian JH-7 "Flounder", Su-34 "Fullback"