P38 with Merlins

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

You should search through some old threads - this has been discussed before.

There really is the questions of when and what version Merlin?

Lockheed certainly thought it was worth looking into producing 3 proposals (with Merlin XX series, Merlin 60 series and Merlin 100 series) through the war.
 
Warren Bodie, who wrote the definitive book on the P-38, said that Lockheed studied it and it looked good.

I had pointed out to him that a two stage Merlin was about 400 lb heavier than a V-1710 and had a lower rated power at altitude.

A friend of mine, Ward Duncan, Maintenance Chief of the 9th PRS (9th Photo Reconnaissance Squadron) said he saw problems with fitting it to the airframe. Admittedly he was talking from the field standpoint rather than what could be done in the factory.
 
A Merlin weighted 400 lb more. i find that extremely hard to believe.
 
All the different marks of Merlins weighed more than the equivalent V-1710, although it is hard to say what is equivalent.

From the 1945/46 Edition of Jane's:

V-1710-F30R and F30L: 1395 lb, 1475 hp at 3000 rpm at 30,000 ft. (does not include weight of turbo and intercooler)

Merlin 61: 1640 lb, 1390 hp at 3000 rpm at 23,650 ft.

However, there appear to be some different definitions of rated power.
 
Installing the Merlin does not solve the problems P-38 had that were unrelated to engine choice: icy cold cockpit above 20000 ft, low dive limit, slow rate of roll, messed cockpit, plenty of blind spots/areas, big size for a fighter, need for more training than 1-engined fighters.

USA has a surplus of Merlins? Install them on P-51s; the P-38 needs two Merlins per each airframe.
 

2 stage Merlin was 400lb heavier than single stage V-1710. However, the 2 stage need approximately the same weight in turbo, and ducting.
 
There have been wasteful applications of these engines, such as the North American F-82, Hawker Henley, Bell's P-63 Kingcobra and Airacuda, etc... but the Lightning is not one of them.
That isnt what I said or at least not what I meant. The P-38 with Allisons and Turbo was a good plane able to do many things others couldn't early in the war. Swapping Merlins would not improve the performance in many respects and would make it worse in some, and would require a new plane anyway. Having done that, what would you do with the 20,000 Allison engines, you couldn't put them in a plane with the utility of the P-38 because there wasn't one. Some get "sniffy" about photo recon as if it is for sub standard planes, over Europe it was vital and only a few were capable of it.
 
Last edited:

I have totaled the weight of the engines and related components for the P-38J and P-51B based on the values given in American's Hundred-Thousand (for one engine)




As one would expect, the weights are not significantly different when the weight of the turbocharger is included. Obviously these are installations in two different aircraft and there may be some differences in an actual P-38 installation.

One thing that stands out in this comparison is that the Merlin weight includes the engine accessories, which are not included in the Allison weight. When the accessories are included the Allison weighs 1526 vs 1670 for the Merlin.

The other issue is that you are attacking a straw man by comparing the performance of a Merlin 61 to the V-1710 F30. Its very common in this forum to compare the performance of the early versions of the Merlin (1942 for the 61) to the performance of later versions of the Allison (1944 for the F30). The Merlin 61 was the first production version of the two stage Merlin and relatively few of it and the similar Merlin 63 were built. It was rapidly superseded by the more powerful Merlin 66. The Merlin 66 was in front line service more than a year before the F30. The correct comparison would be the Merlin 66 or its Packard equivalent V-1650-7.
 
The weights may be similar but they would not be in the same place, it would need a re design.
 
The Merlin had the advantages of a compact supercharger installation and exhaust gas thrust. The first of these didn't matter much with the P-38 since the tail booms had plenty of space.

The P-38 was, aside from possibly the P-63, the only first rank plane using the V-1710. Switching the P-38 to the Merlin would have left the Allison production capability underutilized.
 
Last edited:

A Lockheed P-38 was delivered to Rolls-Royce for conversion to Merlins at some point (not sure which version, but pre -J), but the powers-that-be ordered it returned before any work was done. It is possible that lobbying efforts by GM on Allison's behalf stopped the trial conversion from happening.
 
The Mustang MkI was also a first rank aircraft at what it did the UK would have taken more of them up to 1944 at least. Without the Turbo that the P-38 had there were many competing aircraft but you cant make any type of aircraft that can do long distance missions or combat at high altitude as the P-38 did when it did. Using Merlins just leaves other planes without Merlins because there wasn't a surplus of Merlins until just before the end of the war.
 
Here is something I copied down years ago, after this same discussion on another forum.
It discusses both the proposed Merlin version and the single test example fitted with "paddle-blade" props, and the changes required for either (ideally, both at the same time).

It mentions the reason neither was actually done - the changes on the production line would disrupt production flow, which was NOT acceptable to the government. Note that the War Production Board had 100% control of what was produced, by whom, and when - and that many similar improvements to Government-contracted aircraft from many different manufacturers met exactly the same veto unless requested by the US military branch the aircraft were for, or the change could be implement with no appreciable effect on production rates.

Note the sections I have bolded:



So, the "paddle-blade" prop would have fixed the climb issue with the Merlin, and would have improved altitude performance as well - at the cost of a major redesign of the aircraft, and a significant disruption and delay in production.

As the saying goes: "Perfect is the enemy of good enough".

More "good enough" aircraft NOW and later as well is normally preferable to a "better" aircraft later AND fewer "good enough" aircraft in the interim.
 
I posted this comparison of the P38 J and K from Mike Williams site several years ago. It does not meet the fantastic performance claims of Bodie. Also note that the tests were done by Lockheed and not witnessed by a neutral party
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38J_performance_11march44.pdf
 
Last edited:
Allison was begging Material Command for new orders in fall of 1943 as its Mustang/Allison production forecast disappeared with the advent of the Merlin Mustang production orders in fall 1942. It was projected at 50% capacity for 1944 (which was real).
 

You are correct. The most glaring anomaly of the P-38K 2/44 test was that it was flown 600 hundred pound lighter than the P-38J comparison. About the same time Col Cass Hough and Col Ben Kingsley proposed pulling 2 P-38H from inventory and converting to Merlin 61 - which was swiftly denied by VIII AF Air Service Command. There would be no competing pull on Merlin 61/65 from Packard - All US future deliveries were to be NAA and the 1650-1 spares contract was almost eliminated to give Packard more capacity for the 1650-7 and future -9 for the P-51H
 

Users who are viewing this thread