P-38 with Merlin Engines? Any such animal?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The P-38K

The Story Of The Best Performing Variant Of The P-38 Lightning - P-38K

The Lockheed P-38K-1-LO is now nearly forgotten. No photographs of the aircraft are known to exist today. Only the original test mule was photographed. It has been relegated to that part of history where one off prototypes and special test aircraft usually go. This is rather unfortunate for this aircraft as it was the benchmark against which all other variants of the P-38 Lightning must be compared. Simply said, it was the best performing Lightning ever to take to the sky.

From the very beginning of America's involvement in World War Two, Lockheed was looking for ways to improve the performance of the P-38. The installation of Rolls Royce XX Merlins was seriously considered. Lockheed went as far as designing the installation package. The advantages of the Merlin engine were numerous. First and foremost was the elimination of the complex turbocharger system. This would also result in a much cleaner engine nacelle. The turbo intercoolers could be removed. That would have allowed for a for more aerodynamic package, closer in shape to that of the original XP-38. Another option was to remove the Prestone radiators and place them under the engine as in the P-40. This location had the additional advantage of reducing the length of the cooling system plumbing. This, in turn, reduced the risk of battle damage to the system. Either option would result in a significant reduction in drag and weight. A further benefit would be gained by the removal of intercooler ducting in the front portion of the outer wings. This volume could be utilized for increased fuel capacity. In fact, that is what was done when the P-38J was designed with revised intercooler cores that eliminated the ducting. This increased internal fuel capacity by 110 gallons.

There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710. At the time, no one anticipated the engine and turbocharger problems that developed at high altitude over Europe. Unfortunately, the War Production Board was unwilling to shut down the production line for several months to retool for major design changes required for the engine swap. As a result, the Merlin project was shelved. No P-38 ever flew fitted with Rolls Royce Merlin or Packard engines. The idea of retro-fitting Merlin 61 engines was bantered about 8th Air Force Fighter Command, however there is no evidence that any such conversion ever took place. The prospect of such a modification would have been daunting. This was no simple engine swap, it required large portions of the airframe to be completely redesigned. Stories of Merlin powered Lightnings are, without much doubt, myth.

This, however, did not put an end to seeking greater performance. Lockheed paid close attention to the performance gains achieved with the P-47 when the new "high activity" Hamilton Standard propellers where first fitted on a Republic P-47C in mid 1942 (later, in mid 1943, these propellers were retro-fitted in Britain). The new "paddle" blade prop had significantly increased the rate of climb and acceleration of the "Jug". Lockheed decided that they would install the Hamilton Standard hydraulic propellers on one of the factory test "mules". Thus, was the XP-38K born. The "mule" was an extensively modified P-38E. The original intercoolers were replaced with the newer type introduced on the J model. The initial test results were very encouraging and a P-38G service test airframe (422-81, AFF serial number 42-13558) was selected to be modified.

The new propellers were not the only design changes made in the search for greater performance. This airframe was configured for the Allison V1710F-15 powerplants which were rated at over 1,875 bhp in War Emergency Power (as compared to 1,725 bhp for the V1710F-17 in the P-38L). This was the only P-38 so configured. The potent combination of the engine/propeller promised excellent performance.

There were still other modifications that were necessary. The Hamilton Standard props required a spinner of greater diameter, and the thrust line was slightly higher as well. This in turn, required that new cowlings be manufactured to properly blend the spinners into the engine nacelles. These were hand made and the fit was less than perfect. The new propellers necessitated a change to the reduction gear ratio. The Curtiss Electric props had a normal ratio of 2.00 to 1. The ratio was changed to 2.36 to 1.

Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.

The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted.

In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down.

The true consequences of this pig-headed thinking will never be known. What would have been the impact of such a high performance fighter arriving in force to the forward combat areas in mid 1943? How many lost fighter pilots would have survived thanks to the awe inspiring performance of the P-38K? Again, we can never know these things. What we do know, is that due to bureaucratic myopia, neither the P-38K nor a Merlin powered Lightning ever really had a chance to make an impact upon the air war. For all those pilots who died at the controls of lesser aircraft, the War Production Board bears a measure of responsibility for their fate.
 
Hi again,

>I once prepared a rough calculation of the effect of using mechanically supercharged Merlins instead of turbo-supercharged Allisons

Well, here is a new calculation along the same lines ... just a quick estimate, nothing final, but it illustrates the differences between the two types of engines.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • P-38_Speed_Comparison.png
    P-38_Speed_Comparison.png
    4.8 KB · Views: 250
  • P-38_Climb_Comparison.png
    P-38_Climb_Comparison.png
    4.5 KB · Views: 178
  • P-38_Turn_Comparison.png
    P-38_Turn_Comparison.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 175
When you look at all the aircraft of the war that were extensively modified to take different engines-- sometimes with great success, sometimes with dismal failure, or no gain at all, and the reckless abandon with which A/C designers of all the major nations did this, it seems to me quite astounding that the P-38 never got fitted for the Merlin, ditto the P-39. I'd also like to point out another high-performer with the Allison was the P-63, which the Russians loved. And for those of you poo-pooing the use of the Merlin on the P-40-- it is true the speed did non increase much, but the climb rate was up drastically, and so was the service ceiling. And what would keep them from having used a turbocharger system like the P-38 had, for the Merlin engines, rather than the supercharger system? The turbo system was more effective (I guess) in terms of ceiling and high altitude performance.
 
The turbo system was more effective (I guess) in terms of ceiling and high altitude performance.

Rolls-Royce considered a turbocharged system to increase high altitude performance but concluded that two-stage supercharged system was better.
 
And for those of you poo-pooing the use of the Merlin on the P-40-- it is true the speed did non increase much, but the climb rate was up drastically, and so was the service ceiling. And what would keep them from having used a turbocharger system like the P-38 had, for the Merlin engines, rather than the supercharger system? The turbo system was more effective (I guess) in terms of ceiling and high altitude performance.

The P-40 was being used in lower altitudes therefore the Merlin wasn't helping the it's mission role much. The mod to convert the P-38 to Merlin's as pointed out would of been a major undertaking an would of shut the production line down for several months - in mid 1943 when this was proposed the 5th AF was in desperate need for P-38s as they were in critical need in the PTO with regards to AAF operations. Again by the time the late "Js" and "L" models emerged many of the problems were addressed.
 
Are there any documents that the Merlin was More reliable than the Allison?
I have read after action reports for the P-51A used for low missions over france where the commentator felt that an Allison could bring you home on ruined bearings but a merlin wouldn't. Also read that the packards were stronger than the merlins due to metalurgy.
Just because Allison sat on their hands instead of developing a two-speed super charger doesn't mean the engine isn't any good.
Example is the P-51J

"Ahh, now you've gone and done it!!"
 
Are there any documents that the Merlin was More reliable than the Allison?
I have read after action reports for the P-51A used for low missions over france where the commentator felt that an Allison could bring you home on ruined bearings but a merlin wouldn't. Also read that the packards were stronger than the merlins due to metalurgy.
Just because Allison sat on their hands instead of developing a two-speed super charger doesn't mean the engine isn't any good.
Example is the P-51J.

I always wondered this myself. It seems like from reading personal accounts from WWII, that the Merlins in P-51s had a high non-combat casualty rate. If this is true (which it may just be my conclusion), there may be other factors in play..
 
I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51s in the ETO (some of our older members seen my posts on this, so this is for the sake of our newer members) told me he thought the P-38 made the better G/A aircraft, not only for the two engines but he thought the P-38 was built better than the P-51 and the Alisons could take more punishment.
 
Theres essentially no difference between the Rolls-Royce and Packard Merlins apart from the supercharger drive and carbs. Reports of differing reliability might not be wrong in themselves, but overall there was nothing between the two. Later models had a difference, with the RR models having more boost and more power but the Packard models with less boost and less power. Reliability improved throughout the war.

The early turbocharged V-1710s were not particularly reliable in Europe, having many many problems. These were to most extents cured with the P-38J in late 1943/44. Then at the end of the war sees the return of the supercharged V-1710 with abysmal reliability when mounted in the P-82.
 
I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51s in the ETO (some of our older members seen my posts on this, so this is for the sake of our newer members) told me he thought the P-38 made the better G/A aircraft, not only for the two engines but he thought the P-38 was built better than the P-51 and the Alisons could take more punishment.

Joe - there are lies, damn lies and statistics but my current studies show 2x losses of P-38s in strafing losses (all ground attack) to number of aircraft destroyed on the ground vs the Mustang.. I was amazed - and the 51 had about 20% more losses due to flak than P-47. I will say that the losses counted are all forms of strafing and flak and hitting trees etc to a/c destroyed and does not take into account trains, road traffic etc.

The 38 was also weak ( less tha 1/3 the Mustang and 1/2 the P-47) relative to 47 and 51 in air to air ratios.

8th AF FC numbers only
 
Joe - there are lies, damn lies and statistics but my current studies show 2x losses of P-38s in strafing losses (all ground attack) to number of aircraft destroyed on the ground vs the Mustang.. I was amazed - and the 51 had about 20% more losses due to flak than P-47. I will say that the losses counted are all forms of strafing and flak and hitting trees etc to a/c destroyed and does not take into account trains, road traffic etc.

The 38 was also weak ( less tha 1/3 the Mustang and 1/2 the P-47) relative to 47 and 51 in air to air ratios.

8th AF FC numbers only

Interesting stuff Bill....

Mike Alba told me that many in his squadron didn't want to give up their P-38s. He said the losses mounted with the Mustang when they went down on the deck.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back