P-38 captured!

[tomo pauk]

Lockheed didn't want to produce the single-rotation unit and they also knew planes headed for Europe would need altitude performance. Both the single-rotation and the non-turbo would result in unhappy customers, and Lockheed wasn't looking for that outcome.

In the end, the government order prevailed.....

I file this under 'hangar talk', not under 'historical stuff'. No hard feelings.

You're being much too picky, Tomo...

Maybe I am too picky, but then I'm not the one inventing new clasifications for ww2 gear either.

The V-1710-93 had an auxiliary stage added. It was not an engine with internal 2-stages, and could easily be tuned to run without the auxiliary stage by the addition of standard parts. It had the external auxiliary stage. Yes, it functioned as a 2-stage engine, but the basic engine was still a single-stage supercharged V-12 that had the pressure carburetor fed by the aux stage.

You are mistaking that carburetor on the -93 was fed by auxiliary stage - the ram air 1st entered the carb, and after that it entered the aux stage. Nobody ever claimed that any V-1710 featured Merlin-like 2-stage compressor, the -93 is/was still a 2-stage supercharged engine.

The -93 did make it into the early P-63As, of which the USA got few. They only made 200 P-63A-8s, 730 P-63A-10s and 38 TP-63A-10s. 2,397 of 3,303 of all P-63 variants went to the Soviet Union, and the vast majority of the early -93's went to someone else and we never saw them except for the delivery flights through Alaska.

Allison made 2554 of the V-1710-93 engines, more than 40 percent of all 2-stage V-1710s.

All the rest of the V-1710s equipped with auxiliary stage superchargers were of the -100 series and that is why all the allison experts ignore the sub-100 series engines ... very few were actually flown and the survivors with the aux stages are rare...

I'm afraid that this is a combination of arrogance and misinformation, though the survivors are indeed rare.

So what I said earlier pretty much goes. Our regular service pilots really only saw the -100 series Allisons with the Aux-stage superchargers. A few test pilots saw earlier Aux-stage units, but they never made service and nobody who went through USAAF A&P school who got assigned to active-duty units had much to do with the sub -100 aux-stage engines except for a very few early P-63As that we got. The P-63s we DID get usually went to reserve units. We assigned 1825 P-63 serial numbers, but actually got about 900 of them, the vast majority of which had -100 series Allisons installed. I doubt we ever saw more than maybe 50 of the early P-63As with -93 engines, and they were never issued to combat units.

US service pilots rarely seen also the other Allison 2 stage engines, apart from token number of P-82 pilots. Of course, there was no '100 series' V-1710, but 'E series', or 'G series' for example.

I believe the Soviets were responsible for moving the cannon forward and almost doubling the ammunition capacity and they made several other changes to ensure the P-63 could recover from flat spins. It proved to be a good bird for them.

It was probably a good bird for them. Soviet demanded changes re. strength of airframe, that they judged as not strong enough, ref. AHT entry about the P-63. Soviets did not have any role in disposition of the cannon and ammo. The flat spins were specialty of P-39, not the P-63.

 

[GregP]

Tomo,

The U.S. government classified Allisons with dash numbers, such as -101, -127, etc. Allison's internal classifications were E, F, G etc. All the contracts with the US Government specified government dash numbers, not Allison letter numbers. The -100 series were all the Allisons from the -101 (F27R) onward. Every Allison user knows that, and almost all Allison users these days don't care what number is on the data plate as long as the internals are 100-series units. The 100-series internals are significantly better in many ways as a group than the earlier dash numbers. The first E's that were 100-series were the E21s (-117s).

I never said we didn't make many -93 engines, I said the USA didn't see hardly any of them. We got a few, but most went to the Soviet Union. I KNOW how many of what were built.

In my first paragraph above, I said the -93 was a 2-stage engine, but not with 2 internal stages. It was a single-stage main unit with an aux stage added. Perhaps the arrogance and misinformation are coming from your side.

I don't consider myself arrogant but I KNOW what is going on the Allison world today, as far as what stock is there and who can do what. There really aren't THAT many options.

There are only about 5 Allison overhaulers in the USA who have any stock, and the -93s just are't much represented in that stock. The only -93's I have seen could not be overhauled as -93s because the aux stages were missing. The end result would be predictable. They would be completed as a -89 / -91 without the aux stage (probably -89s), or as 100-series with upgraded internals. Most knowledgeable people who purchase one want the late-model E, F, and G internals with the 12-counterweight crankshatfs. There is stock existing from all the Allisons the USA used ... except for many of the -93's and other aux stage dash numbers. That alone tells me we didn't get many or we'd still have some. If I add up production and subtract the Soviet units, French units, and the 5 for Honduras, I think we got about 512 in total. Some went to the UK, but I haven't located the number.

With all the P-38, P-39, and P-40 engines around, it's no wonder why we don't see too many P-63 engines. I think only 339 of the V-1710-93 powered units stayed here, and some went to foreign customers. The French got between 114 and 300, depending on who you believe. The most frequent number is "about 200." That leaves very little for the USA and they mostly got target tug, Pinball, and station-hack use, plus a few to NACA / NASA and flight test as chase planes. There is a frequently-seen pic of a Bell P-59 Airacoment on a test flight being chased by a P-63. It is probably one of the planes retained by Bell or else on loan from the USAAF for just that purpose.

One of the Allison overhaulers has perhaps 130 Allisons in stock and ready for overhaul. Of those there are no -93s of which I am aware and I worked around the inventory for 2 years. This particular overhauler could build a -93, but would build a 100-series if he were to build one with the aux stage at all. Anyone who would buy an aux-stage Allison would want it cleared for 3,200+ rpm and would specify the later engines. I doubt they'd ever fly it at that rpm unless they were racing at Reno, but having the capability would still be desirable if you are going to be flying the only aux-stage Allison running in the world.

This guy also has 2 auxiliary stage superchargers, but I don't know the gear ratios. You'd have to disassemble them for overhaul and count the gear teeth to find out. I cannot recall seeing a data plate on either of them, but they were obtained as individual items, not as part of an entire engine package. It is possible there was a data plate on them and it is simply missing at this time. I can say the bearings were all in great shape, though, and they'd be good candidates for a flying setup.

I don't know of any 2-stage P-63s currently flying but it is possible. The one at Palm Springs is not running an aux stage. The one at Yanks Air Museum is listed as flyable ... but it doesn't fly so it doesn't matter either way. I am not aware of whether or not the one at the Legacy of Flight Museum in Rexburg, Idaho is running an Aux stage or not. The San Marcos P-63 is not running an Aux stage supercharger. So if there IS one flying with an Aux stage blower, it is the only one.

Of course you will also find almost no early long-nose C-series either and, if they DID have them, nobody much would want to fly one. Steven Gray has one in an early Curtiss P-40C, and it flies only very rarely. The nosecase came from South Americam where the last of the long-nose cases can be found if you are lucky enough to find one.

I'd love to have an early nosecase for decoration, but would decline to fly it ... after maybe 50 hours or so.

The majority of the existing stock are E's and F's with a very few G's in there. Most of the E's and F's are later models. I can only remember seeing a few earlier than a -75 and it was a -51 if I am not mistaken and maybe a -39. The -39 was rebuilt as a -101. Early engines can be built up as later engines with the right parts. The only thing that cannot be upgraded is a long nosecase. The long nose was replaced by the F engine and they never looked back. The F-engine was head and shoulders better than the C-engine.

I know of one Allison PT boat engine ready for overhaul, complete with geared flywheel.

The guys who rebuild accessories for these engines are getting older, and it is entirely possible we will see a shortage of accessories, such as starters, before we run out of Allisons to build.

Nobody wants the old original intake manifolds, either. Everyone wants the manifolds with the turbulators in them which corrected the mixture issue early-on in the early P-38's that went to Europe. Once the mixture issue was solved, they quit making the original manifold configuration, as you might expect.

The Soviets did have a role in moving the P-63 cannon forward, and the reason the P-63 didn't have flat-spin issues was largely due to the Soviet test pilot assigned to the P-63 project in the USA. They ignored him at first but soon found his inputs were vlaid. I've heard stories that the Soviets moved a few things forward when the P-63's got to the Soviet Union to further move the C.G. forward, but have never seen the claim substantiated with any evidence of same. Then again, I haven't really been looking for the evidence, either, because it's not a subject of much interest to me. I'm very interested in flying P-63s; not so much static things in Russian museums. Static displays are just not very interesting to me unless there are no examples of the type flyable and flying; then they start to get somewhat interesting.

 

[Milosh]

The Italians did get one P-38 which ended up with the Germans thanks to the defection of Martin J Martin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti

 

[GrauGeist]

Monti stole a F-5E recon ship (44-23725) and defected with it in '44. It went directly to KG200.

The Italians only had one P-38, which was captured in '43, which was eventually grounded because the Italian's poor fuel quality damaged the engines.

 

[GregP]

You are a good purveyor of little-known information, Graugeist. I bet these tidbits would sell nicely as a collected work on obscrure information about WWII aircraft. I'd probably get one anyway ...

Perhaps a subforum on it?

The question is, if someone didn't bring up a subject that piques your interest, would you think of these things anyway for the collection? Tough one to answer without actually trying it.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

That would have to be an early war RAF roundel, if that was the case, as the roundel changed in 1942.

I hadn't paid attention to the picture in the link before, and hadn't noticed that the plane with the roundels is not a '322, it's either a J or L.

 

[tomo pauk]

There wasn't a "Lightning I" order that preceded a "Lightning II" order, per Bodie anyway. All were ordered as Is. The British did indeed change the "Lightning I" order to a mix of "Lightning Is (model 322B) the "Lightning II" (turboed version) for a portion of their order (524 of the approximately 670 piece order). They learned quickly during the BOB and realized the non-turbocharged versions would not do what they needed. And by that time the BoB was over and there wasn't quite the desperate need that there had been. I THINK the Lightning IIs were supposed to be "equivalent to the P-38-e", which would have been "handed" and turboed engines. However, Britain cancelled the order for all but 3 airplanes, I think all "Lightning Is, prior to the first delivery. I wish Bodie's book was available as an e-book, it would make searching much easier!

You are right, the initial order was strictly non-turbo for British and the French. When France fell, British took over the whole order, with change that meant that most of the Lightnings will be with F5R/L (ie. 'handed') engines and turboes.

Tomo,

The U.S. government classified Allisons with dash numbers, such as -101, -127, etc. Allison's internal classifications were E, F, G etc. All the contracts with the US Government specified government dash numbers, not Allison letter numbers. The -100 series were all the Allisons from the -101 (F27R) onward. Every Allison user knows that, and almost all Allison users these days don't care what number is on the data plate as long as the internals are 100-series units. The 100-series internals are significantly better in many ways as a group than the earlier dash numbers. The first E's that were 100-series were the E21s (-117s).

Greg, I was trying to make the point that there was no sudden switch for all engine's part that matter once the US military run out of 2 digit numbers and started asigning the 3 digit numbers for the V-1710s they were purchasing. The 'flow' of designations did not necesarry meant that bigger number was assigned to a more advanced engine. Eg. the 1st G series engine was -97, rated to 3400 rpm for take off, but it was followed with plethora of -1XY engines of the 'legacy' F series that were mostly rated to 3000 rpm for take off. Or, the F28R was -121, but the newer F29R was -105; would the -121 mean it is more modern an engine, despite being of earlier design and presumably with older parts?
We might also recall that R-2800-34W belonged to C series of that R-2800s, but the -30W belonged to E series of that engine, and it was a more capable engine, despite the lower designation number.

In my first paragraph above, I said the -93 was a 2-stage engine, but not with 2 internal stages. It was a single-stage main unit with an aux stage added. Perhaps the arrogance and misinformation are coming from your side.

Possibly, I'm not that humble a person. Nobody said that -93 was outfitted with the internal 2 stages, but it was a two-stage supercharged engine anyway.

I don't consider myself arrogant but I KNOW what is going on the Allison world today, as far as what stock is there and who can do what. There really aren't THAT many options.

No problems. Maybe it would be okay that we stick to what V-1710 was capable before jet age caught up, just as it was brought out in another thread that fighters/other aircraft of same generation should be compared.

The Soviets did have a role in moving the P-63 cannon forward, and the reason the P-63 didn't have flat-spin issues was largely due to the Soviet test pilot assigned to the P-63 project in the USA. They ignored him at first but soon found his inputs were vlaid. I've heard stories that the Soviets moved a few things forward when the P-63's got to the Soviet Union to further move the C.G. forward, but have never seen the claim substantiated with any evidence of same. Then again, I haven't really been looking for the evidence, either, because it's not a subject of much interest to me. I'm very interested in flying P-63s; not so much static things in Russian museums. Static displays are just not very interesting to me unless there are no examples of the type flyable and flying; then they start to get somewhat interesting.

I would like to politely ask you for sources re. Soviet having input on the (X)P-63 design process (not on the weak airframe, where Soviet input was acted upon), that started as early as February 1941.

 

[GregP]

There were a very few instances where a dash number was started earlier than a higher number but, for the most part, the increasing dash numbers addressed issues that were found either in service or were brought up by the government. The 100-series engines are MUCH better than the pre 100-series engines, possiby except the -93.

When Allisons are built-up these days, they are all 100-series no matter what the data plate says, at least internally, if the overhauler has the parts. If not, then you take your chances and might have a less-than-wonderful experience.

I would want to fly a V-1710 with the 12-counterweight crankshaft, the late mags, the late distributors, the late wiring harness or the custom Yancey harness, and late heads (3/8 studs instead of 5/16 studs).

I'd stick with and E or F engine unless I was racing. Then get a G, probably a G-6.

The 100-series that we built are running VERY well and some have over 1,100 hours on them ... and are STILL running OK. We also got about 900 hours out of a Merlin V-1650-7 at the museum, and I wasn't surprised considering it is run conservatively by Merlin experts at power settings suitable for 100 LL avgas.

You can have the older Allison dash numbers as complete engines, and take 'em in good health. Many parts are identical between the earlier dashes and the 100-series... certainly not the important ones, though. I'd rather run a photo-tach than the stock tachometer setup with a cable, but that's not a really big issue. The cable works ... IF you have a good tach.

If you really want it to sing, polish the intakes on the cylinders, balance the pistons and rods to within 0.5 grams, and make SURE there aren't any sharp edges. The exhaust ports don't matter much since it is supercharged. Pressure makes a slightly rough exhaust port unimportant ... the exhaust will get out. On the intake side, smoother is better, naturally, but the power difference is miniscule on the exhaust side. The stacks make a difference. I like the P-82 night fighter exhaust stacks, myself. Cool-looking and also low back pressure. The main thing to remember is to make all power and rpm changes slowly and smoothly, and only when up to operating temps.

Leaning is an art that can be learned. The Alliosn handbook has a good explanation.

Joe Yancey has blank exhaust rings for the Allison if anyone wants to make their own stacks. You probably won't do better than stock in any case. The stockers are pretty optimal. But you CAN make ot sound louder if that's your thing.

I like 'em quiet myself. Quiet and smooth ...

SAE 50 prop. Try for a Ham-Std is you can. If not, a wide variety of props fits, including the ones from either a standard or glider tug DC-3/C-47. Go with the wide-blade DC-3 glider tug prop and have it shaped to suit you. Hard to go wrong there. I myself like almost ANY prop better than a Curtiss Electric. I've seen too many issues with the DC motor brushes to want one, and the supply of brushes is slowly dwindling. Might HAVE to get used to an Aeroproducts unit, like it or not.