Apparently there was an attempt at a twin P-40!

P-38 had the lowest VNE of the Army WWII fighters.
A P-51D carries more internal fuel for it’s one engine, 92 gal each wing and 80 fuselage, than a P-38 does per engine, 90 and 60 in each wing side and 60 in each leading edge for the later J and L models. P-38 could also carry another 165 drop per side. P-51 could also use the 165 drop but could carry 2 but rarely did. A pair of 110 gal drops on the 51 would add 220 gal for the single engine.
P-38 was designed 1937-38 time frame compared to P-82 1943-44. P-38 aerodynamics lead to compressibility issues that would force the nose down. Late A/C had the dive brakes on the bottom of the wings but was a bandaid. Still had a relative low VNE.

At the end of WWII the US dropped the P-38. Kept the P-47 and P-51D and H as well as the F-82, which remained in limited production. Kinda tells you which was better.

P-38 had the lowest VNE of the Army WWII fighters.
A P-51D carries more internal fuel for it’s one engine, 92 gal each wing and 80 fuselage, than a P-38 does per engine, 90 and 60 in each wing side and 60 in each leading edge for the later J and L models. P-38 could also carry another 165 drop per side. P-51 could also use the 165 drop but could carry 2 but rarely did. A pair of 110 gal drops on the 51 would add 220 gal for the single engine.
P-38 was designed 1937-38 time frame compared to P-82 1943-44. P-38 aerodynamics lead to compressibility issues that would force the nose down. Late A/C had the dive brakes on the bottom of the wings but was a bandaid. Still had a relative low VNE.

At the end of WWII the US dropped the P-38. Kept the P-47 and P-51D and H as well as the F-82, which remained in limited production. Kinda tells you which was better.

...and you could pick up a P-38L with less than 20 hours on it at Kingman for $1,250.00 in 1946. There was an entire field covered with them.

Those were the days.

Dan

I understand the plan was to sell to Paul Allen, not sure there was a Plan B. I was on a project with a fellow that was somehow involved in the restoration. Was given the impression that several people had thrown in a lot of their own money and time to fund it. If true, I hope it works out for them.

There's some difference of opinion on that. A fighter drops tanks to dogfight and then fly home so internal capacity dictates the furthest target you can get back from. Carrying much more than that externally would increase loiter time over the target but doesn't extend combat range. As Rich notes above, the XP-82's internal fuel per engine isn't much more than the P-51D's (288 gals vs 269) so the increase in useful combat range would be modest. Tom Reilly claims the design goal wasn't specifically more range but a faster cruising speed, that long range cruise for P-51s was significantly slower than the 300+ mph of the B-29s they were supposed to be escorting, forcing the P-51s to burn more gas to keep up https://youtu.be/WQP0IHH3FTs (first 40 seconds). Other sources say the goal was to add a second engine, relief pilot and navigator to make flying 8+ hours over ocean safer, less stressful and not require a B-29 "shepherd" to get them to the target. Hard to say now.

From XP-82/P-82B pilots manual.
Looks like A large drop on the centerline and a smaller one under each outer wing. This model is powered by Packard Built Merlins. So about 300 gal internal per side, about 280 useable.
Drops would be 310 center and 2 165 so roughly 620 gal under the wing.

A bit of the complicated fuel system.


Later F-82G with the centerline Radar Pod and 2 Allison V-12 engines.

...and you could pick up a P-38L with less than 20 hours on it at Kingman for $1,250.00 in 1946. There was an entire field covered with them.

Those were the days.

Dan

My step dad and his partner bought three new surplus Boeing PT-17 Stearman trainers in 1946, still crated and each with an extra Cont. 220, for $500. each. Got’em assembled, went into the sign towing business and then went broke.

Gone are the days.

MM

Future skillets.