Turbo prop P-38 for Vietnam?

[frank]

A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

[Stephen Bierce]

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

Convair proposed a counterinsurgency fighter that looked like a turboprop P-38,
but this design lost the competition to the Rockwell OV-10 Bronco. I'm not sure
that Lockheed themselves tried to bring the Lightning back into production, but
back then they had a lot on their plates with the F-104, U-2, SR-71 and C-141
all in the works.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[frank]

I don't know about the Convair Charger I'm assuming. It looks like the
OV-10, which means that the OV-10 would look a lot like a P-38. I don't
think there's anything to it, but you never know.

[Don Stauffer]

Post by Stephen Bierce

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

Convair proposed a counterinsurgency fighter that looked like a turboprop P-38,
but this design lost the competition to the Rockwell OV-10 Bronco. I'm not sure
that Lockheed themselves tried to bring the Lightning back into production, but
back then they had a lot on their plates with the F-104, U-2, SR-71 and C-141
all in the works.
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

Unfortunately, the 38 was designed in the mid to late 30s, and had a lot
of problems aerodynamically that limited its performance. Fixing these
would have required such a major redesign I don't wonder that they went
to a newer design.

There was also a turbo-prop Mustang. The 51 was a later design. Only
by a few years- but those were years that saw big advances, such as
airfoils with a higher critical mach number. Even the 51 had to be
fixed for the later versions, but the fixes were not as radical as what
would have been required for the 38.

A contemporary of the 38 was the 39, again a plane that started with
good goals, but the results showed limitations of the state of the art.
Biggest problem of course was the installation of the Allison with the
single stage blower instead of the turbo originally intended, but even
if they had put in the better engine its design was so critical and
optimized that every change they made in the thing made it worse :-(

[William H. Shuey]

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?
The more research I do on the P-38 the more I believe that there was a
decided bias against the Lockheed product in the top echelons of the
U.S.A.A.F. All the other main U.S.A.A.F. types had two production
sources and a few had three. It wasn't until late 1944 when a second
line was opened for the P-38. Kenny in 5th Air Force was crying for more
38's, he got unwanted 47's. A plant in Texas was tied up building a
couple of thousand of those lousy Vultee Vengeance dive bombers that no
one wanted instead of building something needed like the 38.
The Lightning's problems in Europe were never properly investigated but
that was due more to the command failures in the 8th Air Force than
anything else. Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier has stated that he felt
that the engine/intercooler fires and explosions were due to the
different gasoline chemistry of the gas available in England as opposed
to the Pacific where the problem never arose.
I have been told that the main reason the Allison wasn't replaced was
because the head of the war production board was a former CEO of
Allison's parent company, GM I believe, and he was all ready p.o. about
Allison losing out to Packard's Merlin in the Mustang program and wasn't
about to see GM lose more business. Incidentally, for those old enough
to remember the comic strip "Lil Abner", this guy was the inspiration
for the character of General Bullmoose. Remember him? "What's good for
Bullmoose Motors is good for America".

Bill Shuey

[news.verizon.net]

I am sure that there were profit motives involved in which fighter got
produced, but I think the thing that hurt the P-38 more than anything was
it's own cost, and a Merlin engined P-38 would be even more expensive than a
regular version.

Keith Walker

"William H. Shuey" <***@starpower.net> wrote in message news:***@starpower.net...
: frank wrote:
: >
: > A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
: > such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
: > in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
: > I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
: > anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
: > said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
: > impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?
:
:
: FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
: is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
: place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
: Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
: resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
: attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?
: The more research I do on the P-38 the more I believe that there was a
: decided bias against the Lockheed product in the top echelons of the
: U.S.A.A.F. All the other main U.S.A.A.F. types had two production
: sources and a few had three. It wasn't until late 1944 when a second
: line was opened for the P-38. Kenny in 5th Air Force was crying for more
: 38's, he got unwanted 47's. A plant in Texas was tied up building a
: couple of thousand of those lousy Vultee Vengeance dive bombers that no
: one wanted instead of building something needed like the 38.
: The Lightning's problems in Europe were never properly investigated but
: that was due more to the command failures in the 8th Air Force than
: anything else. Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier has stated that he felt
: that the engine/intercooler fires and explosions were due to the
: different gasoline chemistry of the gas available in England as opposed
: to the Pacific where the problem never arose.
: I have been told that the main reason the Allison wasn't replaced was
: because the head of the war production board was a former CEO of
: Allison's parent company, GM I believe, and he was all ready p.o. about
: Allison losing out to Packard's Merlin in the Mustang program and wasn't
: about to see GM lose more business. Incidentally, for those old enough
: to remember the comic strip "Lil Abner", this guy was the inspiration
: for the character of General Bullmoose. Remember him? "What's good for
: Bullmoose Motors is good for America".
:
: Bill Shuey

[frank]

Wasn't there a Merlin engined prototype, the XP-49 or something?

[TMB]

On 9/15/05 6:33 , in article

Post by frank
Wasn't there a Merlin engined prototype, the XP-49 or something?

The P-49 was a twin boomed outgrowth of the P-38 with a proposed P&W X-1800
engines, but these proved to ambitious in the planning stages and the
Continental XIV-1430-1 was used instead.

The single example first flew in November 1942, crashed and was repaired in
early 1943, and finally scrapped with the advent of the Mustangs' ability to
reach Berlin with drop tanks.

The other somewhat similar plane was the P-58 Chain Lightning using Allison
V-3420-11 turbocharged engines, but only in designation of 'convoy fighter'
and having twin booms. Nothing was similar in dimension, performance, or
components.

The one example flew on D-Day and scrapped in 1947. A second uncompleted
frame was abandoned as a relic sometime thereafter.
--

[WmB]

Post by William H. Shuey
FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?
The more research I do on the P-38 the more I believe that there was a
decided bias against the Lockheed product in the top echelons of the
U.S.A.A.F.

Lockheed probably served up inferior hookers to the USAAF officials. Dunno
about the Merlins, but it seems they could have at least... ahem, pursued...
the P-38K

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

What I want to know is did the bulk of the production of P-40Ns, 5000 built
from 1943 onward, go to the Soviets? Because... that's about the only
reason I could ever figure why they kept cranking out those obsolete crates
along with their obsolete Allisons at such a late date. Does it cost that
much more to manufacture a Merlin/Packard over an Allison?

WmB

[Stephen Bierce]

Post by WmB
What I want to know is did the bulk of the production of P-40Ns, 5000 built
from 1943 onward, go to the Soviets? Because... that's about the only
reason I could ever figure why they kept cranking out those obsolete crates
along with their obsolete Allisons at such a late date. Does it cost that
much more to manufacture a Merlin/Packard over an Allison?

Because the priorities for Merlin production at Packard were headed up by
shipments for British-built and Canadian-built aircraft, meaning Mosquitoes,
Lancasters, Halifaxes and Mark XVI Spitfires. The heavy bombers probably went
through the engines faster than the Mustangs did, I'd imagine. Besides, as far
as the P-40 airframe was concerned, the Merlin engine wasn't all that much of an
improvement.

The Allison V-1710 finally caught up to the Merlin in power (by the time it was
installed in the P-82 Twin Mustang), but of course by then RR had moved on to
the Griffon. A Griffon Warhawk?--Would that have been worth building in 1944?
Curtiss knew that the P-40 was obsolete and by then were building P-47
Thunderbolts.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[WmB]

Post by Stephen Bierce

Post by WmB
What I want to know is did the bulk of the production of P-40Ns, 5000 built
from 1943 onward, go to the Soviets? Because... that's about the only
reason I could ever figure why they kept cranking out those obsolete crates
along with their obsolete Allisons at such a late date. Does it cost that
much more to manufacture a Merlin/Packard over an Allison?

Because the priorities for Merlin production at Packard were headed up by
shipments for British-built and Canadian-built aircraft, meaning Mosquitoes,
Lancasters, Halifaxes and Mark XVI Spitfires. The heavy bombers probably went
through the engines faster than the Mustangs did, I'd imagine. Besides, as far
as the P-40 airframe was concerned, the Merlin engine wasn't all that much of an
improvement.
The Allison V-1710 finally caught up to the Merlin in power (by the time it was
installed in the P-82 Twin Mustang), but of course by then RR had moved on to
the Griffon. A Griffon Warhawk?--Would that have been worth building in 1944?
Curtiss knew that the P-40 was obsolete and by then were building P-47
Thunderbolts.

My bad, I was unclear - I wasn't suggesting they install Merlins in P-40s.
They tried that and it was hardly worth the effort. I was criticizing the
P-40 and the Allison independently from one another, or at least that was my
intention. Why keep the P-40 in production when better aircraft were
available? If the explanation lies with Merlin engine shortages, well that
begs the question of why maintain high outputs of Allison production at the
expense of Merlins.

Said the oversight official to the procurement agent:

Oversight: "Why in God's name do we have so many P-40s on order"

Procurement: "What would we ever do with all those Allisons we have on
order"

Oversight: "Good point. Better double the order"

Another way to look at it, if the US Navy operated along those lines of
thinking they would never have given the greenlight to F8Fs & F7Fs, with
Corsairs and Hellcats devouring R-2800 capacity, not to mention P-47
consumption among others. Many people suspect the USAAF's rationale behind
maintaining P-40 production had more to do with the long standing
relationship between the Army and Curtiss and little else. After all, we
all know that martinis and hookers have scuttled more than their fair share
of low-man or best-man-got-the-job deals. Or it could have been something
entirely plausible, as was the need for keeping Wildcats in production for
service aboard the small escort carriers. Just hard to see it from here.

WmB

[mike]

Post by WmB
I was criticizing the
P-40 and the Allison independently from one another, or at least that was my
intention. Why keep the P-40 in production when better aircraft were
available? If the explanation lies with Merlin engine shortages, well that
begs the question of why maintain high outputs of Allison production at the
expense of Merlins.

1. Allisons were easier to maintain and build than Merlins

not a bad thing for a Lend Lease item.

2. Had better sub 15,000 foot performance

Most combat over the Russian Front fit this

3. Cost less.

the P-40 in 1943 cost just under $10k less than a P-51 per aiframe

4. Allison and Curtiss already had production lines going for them


Now had there been no LL to the Soviets, the P-40 would have probably
been killed sooner, along with P-63 production

**
mike
**

[WmB]

Post by mike

Post by WmB
I was criticizing the
P-40 and the Allison independently from one another, or at least that was my
intention. Why keep the P-40 in production when better aircraft were
available? If the explanation lies with Merlin engine shortages, well that
begs the question of why maintain high outputs of Allison production at the
expense of Merlins.

1. Allisons were easier to maintain and build than Merlins
not a bad thing for a Lend Lease item.
2. Had better sub 15,000 foot performance
Most combat over the Russian Front fit this
3. Cost less.
the P-40 in 1943 cost just under $10k less than a P-51 per aiframe
4. Allison and Curtiss already had production lines going for them
Now had there been no LL to the Soviets, the P-40 would have probably
been killed sooner, along with P-63 production
**
mike
**

Ah-ha, details - now we're getting to it. #1-3 kind of bucks up where my
thinking was on the advantages of extending the service life of the P-40.
It's easier to see why the unique P-39 had legs with its heavy hitting 37mm
cannon, the P-40 is a little tougher to see. Any details on what it was
about the Merlin that made it more costly over the Allison? On the surface
you'd think they'd both would have comparables outlays with respect to
casting, forging and machining costs? The only thing I can imagine is they
might have made heavier use of forgings? Don't tell me R-R gouged us on the
licensing.

On an aside I read a tech article a few years ago concerning the
difficulties P&W had with a shaft vibration problem during R-2800
development. While I don't recall the eventual cure (nor the problem) off
the top of my head, I recall being impressed with the realization that
solutions we take for granted today as SOP were ground breaking and
pioneering as recently as WWII. Probably a good idea to keep that sort of
frame of mind when balancing these things out. The fog is lifting a little -
I think they designed a thrust bearing that is common equipment today and
for many years since. That had to add to the overall cost.

And on yet another aside I caught something the other day on the latest
generation of GM's Corvette Z06 that gave me a chuckle. In addition to its
weight saving use of an aluminum frame, they chose to replace fiberglass
with a lightweight composite mat'l. I'm thinking it was the floor pans. In
this case the mat'l they selected was sandwiched balsawood - as many know a
feature notably present in the design of the F-86 Sabre.

What is old is new again. Which sort of brings us full circle to the
original message about turboprop extended life P-38s. ;-)

WmB

[Gray Ghost]

Alright then my question is the P-39. Why in the heck did
they decide to not include the turbocharger. It seems to have
really crippled it. Why not add it back in when they realized
the problem? I would have thought it would have been easy
enough, it was designed with it.

[Mad-Modeller]

Post by Gray Ghost
Alright then my question is the P-39. Why in the heck did
they decide to not include the turbocharger. It seems to have
really crippled it. Why not add it back in when they realized
the problem? I would have thought it would have been easy
enough, it was designed with it.

When it was designed the -39 didn't have all the equipment included that
it would need to survive combat. Adding the turbocharger back would
have made the aircraft too heavy and would probably have rendered the
addition useless.
As it was it did a very good job low down and since most combat over the
Eastern Front happened at low altitiudes there was no incentive to
return the turbo.
Just my educated guess.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

[news.verizon.net]

The eventual cure for the vibration in the R2800 was the use of dampeners in
the crank web counter weights, spring dampeners in the accessories drives
and many more.

There were iterations of the solution, the book R2800 - Pratt & Whitney's
Dependable Masterpiece, has a table that is 20 (!) pages long detailing the
crankshaft studies in relation to vibration.

There is a mini history here:
http://www.enginehistory.org/engines.htm (pdf's here)
http://www.enginehistory.org/r-2800.htm
http://www.nomeking.com/cbal.htm (nice radial animations)

Keith Walker

" WmB" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:FrBWe.12412$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
: On an aside I read a tech article a few years ago concerning the
: difficulties P&W had with a shaft vibration problem during R-2800
: development. While I don't recall the eventual cure (nor the problem) off
: the top of my head, I recall being impressed with the realization that
: solutions we take for granted today as SOP were ground breaking and
: pioneering as recently as WWII. Probably a good idea to keep that sort of
: frame of mind when balancing these things out. The fog is lifting a
little -
: I think they designed a thrust bearing that is common equipment today and
: for many years since. That had to add to the overall cost.
:
: What is old is new again. Which sort of brings us full circle to the
: original message about turboprop extended life P-38s. ;-)
:
: WmB
:
:

[kim]

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?

I'm guessing it has to do with the cooling arrangements. The P-38 was
essentially a flying radiator. It might have been more difficult to cool a
pair of Merlins than a pair of Allisons? Just guessing.

(kim)

[Jeff Barringer]

Engine Availability -

Packard's merlin production was sucked up by North American
for the Mustang and also for Canadian built Lancasters and
Mosquitos, as well as Aussie produced Mosquitos. Packard built
Merlins were also used in Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Why not just stop production of Allisons and convert to Merlins?
Time and production numbers. The turn around time for retooling to
build merlins, then redesign the aircraft using allisons (or retool the
aircraft plants to produce aircraft that used the merlin) would
have taken too much time and slowed production numbers too much.
By 1942 every theater was screaming for replacement aircraft or
new squadrons that they simply cound't slow the production to change
over.

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?

I'm guessing it has to do with the cooling arrangements. The P-38 was
essentially a flying radiator. It might have been more difficult to cool a
pair of Merlins than a pair of Allisons? Just guessing.
(kim)

[Gray Ghost]

Post by Jeff Barringer
Engine Availability -
Packard's merlin production was sucked up by North American
for the Mustang and also for Canadian built Lancasters and
Mosquitos, as well as Aussie produced Mosquitos. Packard

built

Post by Jeff Barringer
Merlins were also used in Spitfires and Hurricanes.
Why not just stop production of Allisons and convert to

Merlins?

Post by Jeff Barringer
Time and production numbers. The turn around time for

retooling to

Post by Jeff Barringer
build merlins, then redesign the aircraft using allisons

(or retool the

Post by Jeff Barringer
aircraft plants to produce aircraft that used the merlin)

would

Post by Jeff Barringer
have taken too much time and slowed production numbers too

much.

Post by Jeff Barringer
By 1942 every theater was screaming for replacement

aircraft or

Post by Jeff Barringer
new squadrons that they simply cound't slow the production

to change

Post by Jeff Barringer
over.

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-

38 that it

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
was such a good design that there was a proposal in the

'60s to put

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
it back in production with turbo props & a redesigned

wing, for

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
ground attack. I've never seen anything along those

lines, but that

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
doesn't mean anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-

38 with the

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
P-51, but he said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav

WWII fighter

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey

Post by frank
& that story impressed him. Anybody else ever see this

tale?

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see
investigated is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38

with the

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
Merlin 60 series in place of the Allison/Westinghouse
supercharger/inter cooler combination. Two 60 series

Merlins with

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
their internal supercharger would have resulted in a

weight saving and

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
more space for gas. It was never attempted, and as far as

I know was

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
never investigated by Lockheed. Why?

I'm guessing it has to do with the cooling arrangements.

The P-38 was

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim
essentially a flying radiator. It might have been more

difficult to

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim
cool a pair of Merlins than a pair of Allisons? Just

guessing.

Post by Jeff Barringer

Post by kim
(kim)

Um you do know that the early Mustang was Allsion powered and
that the Brits did a quickie conversion to the Merlin which
made the Mustang the legend it was. Doesn't seem that hard to
switch engines. Mosquitos and Lancs were actually designed to
accept "Power Packs" - interchangeable engines.

[mike]

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.

Swapping a singlestage blower equipped Merlin in a P-40F showed
little improvement over the singlestage Allison.

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have

It wasn't internal to the engineblock, but coupled.The disadvantage
of the Allison was it had an Integral blower, which made it
difficult to add an extra gearbox onto it, but no effect on adding
Turbos. This wasn't changed on Allisons till late in the war.
More on this later.

Post by kim

Post by William H. Shuey
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?

Turbochargers could be lighter than a gear driven multistage,
multispeed blower, but take up more volume for ducting. This advantage
is lessened if the supercharged Merlin was fitted with an Aftercooler,
that cooled the compressed air before it got to the intake manifold

Allisons could be Intercooled, the airtemp reduced between
turbo and internal blower, but not aftercooled easily.

Post by kim
I'm guessing it has to do with the cooling arrangements. The P-38 was
essentially a flying radiator. It might have been more difficult to cool a
pair of Merlins than a pair of Allisons? Just guessing.

For a given HP output, an engine will make similar amount of waste
heat, needing cooling from oil and glycol to prevent the engine
from melting down. The two engines had similar displacements
and compression ratios, and so for the same power levels,
would make similar amounts of BTUs to be cooled

All forms of Boost takes HP to run the compressor.
A Merlin might need 150HP off the crankshaft to get to 1500HP,
while the Allison gets that from the free exhaust to get to 1500HP.

The gear setup needs to make 850HP worth of max boost, while the
Turbo only 700 to get to 1500HP total, given that both engines made
about 7-800HP at Sealevel without any extra boost/water injection/etc

At 30,000 feet, either engine would make about 1/3rds its base sealevel

HP output, about 300HP. It was easier for the Turbo to make up the
extra boost needed to keep power levels up in very thin air, the
Supercharger is starting to eat a large percentage of the engines
output,just to run the supercharger, let alone provide boost to
increase the power level

This is why the USAAF Bombers and P-38 and P-47 had Turbos, V.high
altitude performance.

Postwar, the 'Twin Mustang' used Allison power, but with a two stage
blower, and was similar to the Merlin in HP output at Altitude.

Also postwar, hydroplane racing showed the Allison did well vs
Merlin powered boats.

The engines were really pretty similar. Its just the Merlin
had a two stage blower, vs the Allison single stage, that gave the
Merlin its advantage.

The 'Ultimate Allison' near 3000HP using Turbocompounding,
was cut short by tubojets.

**
mike
**

[Mark Levine]

Post by William H. Shuey
FWIW The part of the P-38 story that I would like to see investigated
is why there was no attempt to fit the P-38 with the Merlin 60 series in
place of the Allison/Westinghouse supercharger/inter cooler combination.
Two 60 series Merlins with their internal supercharger would have
resulted in a weight saving and more space for gas. It was never
attempted, and as far as I know was never investigated by Lockheed. Why?
The more research I do on the P-38 the more I believe that there was a
decided bias against the Lockheed product in the top echelons of the
U.S.A.A.F. All the other main U.S.A.A.F. types had two production
sources and a few had three. It wasn't until late 1944 when a second
line was opened for the P-38. Kenny in 5th Air Force was crying for more
38's, he got unwanted 47's. A plant in Texas was tied up building a
couple of thousand of those lousy Vultee Vengeance dive bombers that no
one wanted instead of building something needed like the 38.
The Lightning's problems in Europe were never properly investigated but
that was due more to the command failures in the 8th Air Force than
anything else. Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier has stated that he felt
that the engine/intercooler fires and explosions were due to the
different gasoline chemistry of the gas available in England as opposed
to the Pacific where the problem never arose.
I have been told that the main reason the Allison wasn't replaced was
because the head of the war production board was a former CEO of
Allison's parent company, GM I believe, and he was all ready p.o. about
Allison losing out to Packard's Merlin in the Mustang program and wasn't
about to see GM lose more business. Incidentally, for those old enough
to remember the comic strip "Lil Abner", this guy was the inspiration
for the character of General Bullmoose. Remember him? "What's good for
Bullmoose Motors is good for America".
Bill Shuey

While it's only tangentially related, the story I'd like to see
investigated is why the USAF decided to bring back the P51 as the F51
for ground attack in Korea while the radial engine P47 would have, by
all reports, been infinitely better as a ground attack aircraft.
Instead of bringing back an aircraft that could take a great deal of
punishment from ground fire you bring back an aircraft that could be
brought down with one hit from a rifle. Why?

Mark

[r***@rcn.com]

Post by Mark Levine
While it's only tangentially related, the story I'd like to see
investigated is why the USAF decided to bring back the P51 as the F51
for ground attack in Korea while the radial engine P47 would have, by
all reports, been infinitely better as a ground attack aircraft.
Instead of bringing back an aircraft that could take a great deal of
punishment from ground fire you bring back an aircraft that could be
brought down with one hit from a rifle. Why?

P-47's postwar tended to concentrated in east coast ANG's while P-51's
tended to be concentrated in west coast ANG's. From what little I've
seen the simple reason was ease of shipping due to that.

[WmB]

Post by r***@rcn.com

Post by Mark Levine
While it's only tangentially related, the story I'd like to see
investigated is why the USAF decided to bring back the P51 as the F51
for ground attack in Korea while the radial engine P47 would have, by
all reports, been infinitely better as a ground attack aircraft.
Instead of bringing back an aircraft that could take a great deal of
punishment from ground fire you bring back an aircraft that could be
brought down with one hit from a rifle. Why?

P-47's postwar tended to concentrated in east coast ANG's while P-51's
tended to be concentrated in west coast ANG's. From what little I've seen
the simple reason was ease of shipping due to that.

I knew an old P-47 jockey from WWII. While he never made it overseas (that
I recall), he was fully qualified by war's end and as such would have had
the benefit of being trained by experienced pilots returned from the ETO. I
take what he had to say about the Jug without reservation and two points he
made repeatedly, were:

1. There was nothing like the P-47 in the ground attack mode. He described
the manner by which they were being trained to lead an armored target ahead
so as to strike the ground and ricochet the rounds up thru the thinner armor
below. I can see where on one hand one could say that sounds like nutty
bullshit, and where it would be plausible on another. I'll give the old vet
the nod on that one in the absence of anyone having something to the
contrary.

2. He went out of his way to lament the absence of the P-47 on the Korean
War battlefield. He was adamant and somewhat angry about it - more so than
any other topic concerning the P-47. He firmly believed the Jug had more
life in her and would have torn the Chicom ground forces a new asshole like
nothing they had seen.

Rest in peace Lt. George Anderson - you were a cool old bird and I do sorely
miss our all too brief chats.

WmB

[William H. Shuey]

Post by Mark Levine
While it's only tangentially related, the story I'd like to see
investigated is why the USAF decided to bring back the P51 as the F51
for ground attack in Korea while the radial engine P47 would have, by
all reports, been infinitely better as a ground attack aircraft.
Instead of bringing back an aircraft that could take a great deal of
punishment from ground fire you bring back an aircraft that could be
brought down with one hit from a rifle. Why?
Mark

FWIW The postwar air force was lead by successor's of Hap Arnold's who
were firmly committed to the strategic air force dream and most were 8th
Air Force Veterans. The Mustang was the fighter that finally made their
dream a possibility in Europe and by 1947 the P-47s were on the way to
the boneyard or the Guard. The P-51 was the prop fighter of choice until
it could be replaced by jets because of its association with the
strategic bombing crowd, that simple. No one for saw a mess like Korea,
all the air force brass were mesmerized by the threat of Russia and the
drive toward a strategic air command.

Bill Shuey

[kim]

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

I don't know about the P-38 but the whole lo-tech counter-insurgency idea
was abandoned when the Viet Cong acquired shoulder launched missiles.

(kim)

[Moi]

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38 that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter & that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

THe fun thing is, when I got back into modeling a few years ago, the first
thing I did was a modification to the Academy P-38/ F-5 as a turboprop.
Smoothed all the seams, as it was intended to simulate composite
construction, and filled in the superchargers on the top. SMOOTH looking
bird. I still need to go in and add some kind of exhaust stack on the side
somewhere.

Has anyone any additonal info on the turboprop that Piper built based around
a Mustang design? They have it at the Air Force Museumn, and it had an N
tail number. I got to see it on their behind the scenes tour a few years
ago.


Rich Cox
--------------------------------------------------------------
À la gloire éternelle de l'infanterie...
miroite le nommé de RodgerYoung.

[RobG]

"Moi" <***@mindspring(nospam).com> wrote in and sought the
collected wisdom of the group on this topic...

Post by Moi
Has anyone any additonal info on the turboprop that Piper built based
around a Mustang design? They have it at the Air Force Museumn, and
it had an N tail number. I got to see it on their behind the scenes
tour a few years ago.

Rich,
If you can get hold of it, Stewart Wilson's book "Mustang" (ISBN 1 875671
51 X ) by Aerospace Publications has a bit of info on the Cavalier Mustang
II (1967), the Cavalier Enforcer (1971) and the (ex-Cavalier) Piper PA-48
Enforcer (1983) If you can't get it, let me know and I'll scan the relevant
pages (eventually.... I'm slow at this.)




RobG

[Chek]

Post by frank
A friend was telling me that he read in a book on the P-38
that it was
such a good design that there was a proposal in the '60s
to put it back
in production with turbo props & a redesigned wing, for
ground attack.
I've never seen anything along those lines, but that
doesn't mean
anything. I asked if he was confusing the P-38 with the
P-51, but he
said 'no way', because the P-38 is his fav WWII fighter &
that story
impressed him. Anybody else ever see this tale?

The other point to remember is that in that timeframe, the
Merlin was itself
about to be superseded by the Griffon powerplant with an
extra 500hp.

[Bruv]

replying to frank, Bruv wrote:
Hey dude!
Sorry I’m 14 years late hehehe, but just finished watching Scorseses
“Aviator”
And found out about this pretty bird
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XF-11
Maybe that’s the one your friend mentioned, it doesn’t quite match the
time period, but it’s probably the closest resemblance to a turboprop p-38.

[Mad Modeller]

But the XF-11 dates to the immediate post-war years. There weren't many built. Are there any left?