What was the problem with the allison engine?

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

You started with a diatribe against the engine but now your saying - "I think this reinforces my earlier post showing that the P-51B was a highly defective airplane in the spring of 1944."



I posted the following message three days ago about defects found in the P-51B, many of which were not engine-related, so I have no idea why you now contend that point wasn't raised earlier:




I'm pretty sure that the pilots who turned back early from a mission did not feign those kind of problems because they had a hot date in London.



what people say and think now has no bearing on 70 years ago.


If only you practiced what you preach.
 
I cannot understand the thread of your argument you seem to have two opposing views. I am out of this discussion now as you seem to be heading towards being personal.

As the great Jedi Master Yoda said recently. Fun you will have on your own
 
I think this reinforces my earlier post showing that the P-51B was a highly defective airplane in the spring of 1944.

I show 1,578 Allison Powered Mustangs built, 1,987 P-51Bs and 1,750 P-51Cs (Texas razorbacks) built. I believe some of the Allison P-51 production run overlapped P-51B/C production. Although you keep showing individual combat reports, if the P-51B was truly "defective" as you say, don't you think someone at the war department would have stopped Merlin production and reverted back to an all Allison fleet or just cancelled the P-51 Merlin production line all together?

What you're showing IMO was no different than many of the other aircraft entering combat service, especially in the numbers, environment and mission assignments this "new" airframe was expected to perform in, if anything the P-51B performed well despite the examples you're showing. Agree, there were some major issues with the P-51B when it first entered service and there was much improvement needed to get the full potential out of the aircraft, but despite these issues I think history tells us that the marked improvement over the Allison airframe was apparent. I've met several WW2 veterans who flew both versions and even spoke of some of the same issues you're trying to highlight, but in the end they would have chosen a Merlin powered P-51, except for Col. Mike Alba - he would have preferred to stay in the P-38!!!
 
Last edited:
A defective airplane is defective, not just in the first few weeks it appeared. Things like oil and coolant leaks are production quality control issues not the aircraft design and complaints about the radio have nothing to do with the aircraft. To suggest that the merlin itself was defective in 1944 is a little off the wall, it powered almost all British front line fighter recon. and bomber aircraft up to that time, especially the ones on the longest missions with two or four of them.
 
Last edited:
Things like oil and coolant leaks are production quality control issues not the aircraft design and complaints about the radio have nothing to do with the aircraft.

Many of these aircraft were test flown at the factory, disassembled and then shipped to Europe, reassembled and sent off to squadron so the potential for "quality" issues were great.
 
Many of these aircraft were test flown at the factory, disassembled and then shipped to Europe, reassembled and sent off to squadron so the potential for "quality" issues were great.

I was going to make a similar point but I dont know how far they were disassembled after their test flight at the factory. Most of the problems highlighted should have been sorted in commissioning checks. I would think that is what was done to solve them, all part of learning how to put a new piece of kit in service.
 
...To suggest that the merlin itself was defective in 1944 is a little off the wall, it powered almost all British front line fighter recon. and bomber aircraft up to that time, especially the ones on the longest missions with two or four of them.

Or just with one of them
 
The P-40F did not have a lot of issues but, being a single-stage engine, was also not better than the Allison P-40. Some were a few mph faster. Some weren't. As far as I've been able to check, the two airplanes were about equal in performance with the Merlin version deleting the carburetor airscoop, making for marginally better visibility.

Either engine seems to have been about the same. Now had they put in a 2-stage Merlin, then we'd have seen a real jump in P-40 performance. The single-stage planes weren't much given to playing at ETO combat altitudes.
 
I wouldn't spend too much time arguing with this person, as this exact same argument happened here: Reliability of aircraft engines nearly 10 years ago.

With virtually the same figures pulled out of context to support the same circular argument

I will say that perhaps the single most informative comment in all 9 pages of that particular discussion, was in another member's reply:
"Anecdotal information is difficult to include and draw reliable conclusions from"

 
Or just with one of them

Well, I considered including single engined aircraft but then someone would have said they were mainly point interceptors, only a small percentage of Spitfires were long distance recon versions, but by 1944 they had been venturing into Germany with Merlins for a long time.
 
The Fulmar was also managing long missions, combat included, over the water for the start. On a single Merlin engine.
 
The Fulmar was also managing long missions, combat included, over the water for the start. On a single Merlin engine.

Yes, that is the sort of comment for no reason whatsoever that I was trying to avoid, valid though your comment is it is it is a distraction, the merlin was originally designed for single engined aircraft, if it had been consistently unreliable it would not have been chosen to power four engined bombers for long distance bombing raids. I am not saying it was better than the Allison in reliability, I am saying it was not an intrinsically unreliable engine in 1944, whatever airframe it was bolted into.
 
This isn't much of a discussion anymore. It started off asking about the Allison and morphed into a discussion of the Merlin. Go figure.

On topic, there was nothing wrong with the Allison that a change in USAAF requirements would not have cured. The choice of high-altitude boost systems was the USAAC's choice, a turbocharger. Had they hedged and asked for multiple high-altitude boost systems, we might have had a different story. But we didn't.

There is nothing wrong with the Merlin as a service engine. It takes a lot of labor to overhaul it, but in service it runs just fine.

And it doesn't matter a bit what an aero engine was designed for. It matters how it gets used and what the results are. The reputation, good or bad, is earned in the air, not in the design phase. Merlins did everything asked of them and more. Allisons did, too.

If the turbo installation was debugged, it worked fine, If it was an early system, it had a few issues that were addressed and solved; a bit later than the Merlins, but they were solved. A P-38J or L had no real turbo issues other than normal in-service things that happen. They never did let Curtiss put a turbo in the P-40 or Bell complete the turbo in the P-39, so those were low-altitude airplanes.

The engines weren't bad, they performed as advertised at the altitudes expected, and made overhaul as expected. It's just that the enemy wasn't fighting where the P-39s and P-40s were flying all that much.
 
Last edited:
Hey EKB,

You better stop while you're still in good standing. Mission abort rates are not necessarily attributable to the aircraft. If the main abort reasons are systems, then the aircraft is to blame. If the main abort reasons are engines, then the engine is to blame. Also, the abort rates for each engine are a great subject to explore.

Look really hard at bombers. They have multiple engines and can generate very realistic engine failure rates quickly.

Single-engine fighters can do so with some camouflage. Did a Curtiss Electric prop fail due to motor brushes? Or what? Was it a burst oil line? What about an electrical fault?

You have shown abort rates for some P-51s. What about the same data for P-47s or P-39s or P-40's or Spitfires or Hurricanes, etc.?

Use the scientific method and form a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it yourself. If you can, it's wrong. If you can't it MAY be right.

Good luck.
 
Not forgetting ... I can't elaborate every possibility in a short post, but I get your point.

Mission aborts are generally attributable to some system, be it powerplant, prop, gear, hydraulic, gasoline (as in run out), electrical, or some system failure. It certainly isn't combat if it is an abort.

Could be armament arming issues as well as anything else. If you can't shoot, you'd better RUN.

Some analysis might be indicated.
 

Users who are viewing this thread