Author Topic: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L  (Read 1768 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2009, 02:22:42 PM »
Not a valid comparison. The P-39s didn't ship with them, and have them disabled by the USAAC.

The P-39 development reached a point where a decision was made, and that part omitted. Wrong or right, it wasn't "undo-able"...

Question is why did the USAAC limit the power settings on Allison engines. They probably had reasons. Also don't forget a lot of P-38s had some engine issues and cooling issues. When you have 2 you can still make it home on 1, though, so engine failure wasn't as costly as when a single-engine plane went down.

Offline minke

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 619
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2009, 02:46:36 PM »
Why are 38 drivers never,ever,ever,never,ever happy?

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2009, 03:53:36 PM »
deleted

I have to be nice.
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2009, 11:10:14 PM »

Question is why did the USAAC limit the power settings on Allison engines.

Short answer: Higher power meant higher boost. Higher boost meant more strain. More strain meant more time spent fixing the thing than flying it.
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2009, 11:16:23 PM »
Ding ding ding! We have a winnar!

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2009, 12:19:26 AM »
Why are 38 drivers never,ever,ever,never,ever happy?

You don't know many of us cartoon 38 drivers do ya? :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2009, 01:08:11 AM »
Why are 38 drivers never,ever,ever,never,ever happy?

Remember to run if you hear the sound of a "pegleg" coming towards you.   If you wait too long, you're screwed.   :uhoh
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline mechanic

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11328
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2009, 03:04:31 AM »
Pegleg of doom....


PS: 38H please!
And I don't know much, but I do know this. With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2009, 07:46:46 AM »
Not a valid comparison. The P-39s didn't ship with them, and have them disabled by the USAAC.

The P-39 development reached a point where a decision was made, and that part omitted. Wrong or right, it wasn't "undo-able"...

Question is why did the USAAC limit the power settings on Allison engines. They probably had reasons. Also don't forget a lot of P-38s had some engine issues and cooling issues. When you have 2 you can still make it home on 1, though, so engine failure wasn't as costly as when a single-engine plane went down.

Krusty I'm not advocating turbos for the 39.  Just pointing out that the military does some odd things from time to time. Sheesh :rolleyes:
See Rule #4

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2009, 11:16:02 AM »
Krusty I'm not advocating turbos for the 39.  Just pointing out that the military does some odd things from time to time. Sheesh :rolleyes:

I got your intention, but it wasn't really the same issue. One was a decision from the design phase, and one was a limitation called down after production.

But I did get your point.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2009, 03:39:56 PM »
Also don't forget a lot of P-38s had some engine issues and cooling issues.

Since this is a discussion about the WEP limitations on the L and no other variant of the Lightning, comments about "a lot of other P-38s" having engine and cooling problems isn't really relevant considering those issues were corrected in the L variant.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2009, 03:42:08 PM »
Fair enough, but I thought maybe it applied to the reasoning behind the USAAC's decision.

Offline 2ADoc

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2009, 04:15:48 PM »
The turbos were removed from the P-39 do to cooling problems, and the fact that the plane was not going to be used at High altitude.  Also the USAAC could get more hours per engine before it cratered.  The same reason that they De-rated the later 1710 Allisons.  Even today in the modern warbirds that are using the 1710's most owners opt to have them derated so that they don't have to pay 500,000 dollars for a new one as often.
Takeoffs are optional, landings aren't
Vini Vedi Velcro
See Rule 4, 13, 14.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6138
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2009, 06:53:30 PM »
I hadn't read the other thread but clearly your original quote in this thread has been misread.  Your "side note" was somehow transposed to mean that engine or power setting is what should be on the P-38L when you said nothing of the sort.

On the WEP, I wasn't implying anything about RPM, I only listed RPM because I wanted to differentiate them but I didn't want to look up the MP ratings.  Although I'd bet that the main purpose of the RPM increase was to achieve the higher boost and that without the higher RPM that ultra high MP would be unattainable.



No, the RPM had nothing to do with the manifold pressure. On an Allison with a turbocharger (it already has a crank driven centrifugal supercharger) the MAP (manifold absolute pressure) is regulated by throttle opening and the waste gate. It did not need to turn 200 RPM in order to get 10" more boost. All you need to do is open the throttle further and/or adjust the waste gate. Also, with a turbocharged engine, boost is also at least partially regulated by load. Of course, if you change the prop pitch to allow the engine to turn more RPM, you remove load from the engine, when you remove the load, the turbocharger boost often drops. My turbocharged V6 TType Regal is a prime example. If you rev the engine  in neutral, it barely builds boost. If you rev it in gear, against the torque converter, loading it, it will build all the boost you can stand. The normal procedure for taking off in a P-38 is to hold it against the brakes (creating the load) until you make 50"+ of boost (a P-38 is supposed to have good enough brakes to sit still while you build that boost, although it won't do it in AH II).
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6138
Re: Remove WEP limitation from the P-38L
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2009, 07:04:30 PM »
The turbos were removed from the P-39 do to cooling problems, and the fact that the plane was not going to be used at High altitude.  Also the USAAC could get more hours per engine before it cratered.  The same reason that they De-rated the later 1710 Allisons.  Even today in the modern warbirds that are using the 1710's most owners opt to have them derated so that they don't have to pay 500,000 dollars for a new one as often.

An Allison V-1710 doesn't cost $500K. I've seen them selling for $200K or so.

The G series Allison V-1710 in the P-82 Twin Mustang is rated at a higher HP than any of the F series Allison V-1710 engines found the rest of the World War II aircraft. Two differences made a little difference. They added center counterweights to the crankshaft (F series engines got those crankshafts at times, late in the war) so that the engine was smoother and easier on bearings at higher RPM. The intake manifold was altered several times beginning with the F-17 series from the P-38J, to improve mixture distribution which prevents detonation.

The turbocharger was removed from the P-39 because the USAAC decided that the scoop and the cover for the turbocharger caused too much aerodynamic drag.

The problem with turning up the boost on a V-1710 Allison wasn't really the engine itself, especially after the updated intake manifolds. Usually it was a problem with fuel quality combined with maintenance procedures. Properly tuned an Allison V-1710 can easily run as much as 80" MAP in stock form, on decent fuel.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe