Rolls Royce Merlin Engines

[nomorecatering]

It seems that the supply of real warbirds, such as P-51 Mustangs, Spitfires etc is assured, with the likes of Historic Aircraft and other companies doing restorations, and Flugwerk in Germany, from what I can gether on their website , they may produce New Build P-51 Mustangs in adidtion to the FW-190.

It seems the supply of Merlin Engines will be the limiting factor. I know the supply of parts is ok at the moment(someparts are quite scarce though), and some parts are even being manufactured for the Rono Air Race crowd.

But what about building Brand New Merlin Engines. Is this ever likely??? It would seem on face value not an overly difficult task given that small engineering teams turn out F1 engines, or small specialist car makers turn out incredible engines. The Mclaren F1 comes to mind.

It would be interesting to see what could be done on a new merlin, using todays advanced materials and production processes, not to mention computer controlled fuel injection etc etc.

Thoughts anyone!!!

[tinpis]

http://www.bpeheads.com/falcv12.htm

[RJM]

I've restored several Austin Healey cars. There are enough cars and people working on them to support a healthy industry supplying replica parts, both mechanical and body parts.

There are some similarities with the warbird situation.

Every part is now available for these cars as a replica except engine blocks (I stand to be corrected, but I think that is the position).

However, I have heard that someone is thinking of casting new blocks, and I would say that is just a matter of time before they're available.

I know for sure that new blocks are being made for Vincent motorcycles.

I'm not an engineer, but I think that technology is on the side of the block reproducer here. Short run production of good quality parts, even complex castings, is probably becoming easier rather than harder.

Notwithstanding anything above, a structural engineer once said to me about buildings - you draw it, we'll make it work. All you need is money.

I'm sure that's right, and if one were absolutely desperate to have a new Merlin, and if cost were no object, one could be made immediately.

But as you imply, it will probably take a tightening of supply before someone takes the plunge.

[proplover]

Limiting factor for Merlins will be camshafts and main blocks. Even if you can reproduce the cams (I know of companies who have) you will not get the CAA to agree to a type approval. I believe and I stand to be corrected that as the BBMF dont fall under the CAA net then they can use, I presume, at their own discression newly made camshafts.
Other countries eg USA are not bound by such worries and may well be running newly made cams etc however main blocks are a different thing.
same thing applies to Chippy parts - in the UK you can fit parts that are 50 years old and have sat a shelf for donkeys years as long as its got a ticket with the relavent details on it then fine - make a new bit using better and stronger materials to better tolerances - no chance. You will have to prove that the new bits are fit for purpose which in certain cases includes testing to destruction and testing for calculating the items "life". Agree its to stop cowboy builders etc etc but many firms are reputable, experenced companies but hey ho not in this country son! the other bit is, in this day and age is the company liability on those producing the bits - no company wants to be sued if their bit breaks on an engine and causes some fatalities.

[Kolibear]

Wearing my engineers hat now.

Its probably quite easy to reverse engineer a Merlin, all you need is time & money. But if you are going to make them on a commerical basis then time & money are two commodities in short supply.

Its all very well to talk about making new Merlins, but which Merlin are you going to make? Although the basic Merlin doesn't change, its always a V-12, 27 litre, the V-angle is the same, bore cetres etc etc, but there is a vast difference between 1936 & 1945 Merlins.

I'm sure that the basic block had various lugs, webs and boltholes added that were relevant to one application, but not to another, so what do you do there - try & cast a generic block?

I really doubt that there is a large enough customer base to make this a viable proposition.

Its a great thought, to restart the Merlin production line. Rolls Royce might not be too impressed though and I doubt if they would allow their name to be added to the finished engine.

[Lowtimer]

Wonder which industrial corporation owns the Packard name these days?
Yes, it's silly that you can use old parts but not new ones. I tink teh CAA enforces this philosophy simply so that it can eventually see the back of such types in the long run and get on with toadying to the airlines. It's like with the Yak-52: I can have a old one on the G reg because it's ex-military and therefore eligible for a Permit, but I can't have a recently built one because the individual airframe has not spent heaps of hours being trampled on with Russian army boots, it is eligibe neither for a C of A nor for a Permit.

[Blacksheep]

I don't believe its impossible - all that's needed to manufacture replacement parts is PMA. However, no company will go to the trouble of securing PMA for any replacement parts unless there's a profitable market to service. Thus you can easily obtain PMA replacement parts for a PW4056 or a CFM56-5 but not for a Merlin or a Chipmunk.

[RJM]

Aside from the PMA issue, there is another interesting aspect to the problem of Merlins and any older engineered items, one which could help the chances of relatively small scale production.

That's the fact that the engines were designed before computers, and so were the tools that made the engine parts.

There was some automation and a lot of power assistance, but I think I'm right in suggesting that the engines were more or less designed and built 'by hand', slide-rule, micrometer and manual drawing. There would have been fewer compound curves such as those that might be generated by a computer and built using electronic lathes and other fancy stuff.

So reverse engineering must be a lot simpler.

Anyway, I hope it happens. It would be a pity to see a Chev V8 powering an other wise authentic warbird. Although I think that the Merlin even in its basic version would c*ap on even a hot big block Chevy, certainly for torque.

[WG774]

To compound the issues relating to CAA certification, there may well be metallurgical variables to consider when machining new parts, as touched upon in This Thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113701&highlight=merlin)

The engineers of yesteryear would’ve given their eye-teeth to have access to the kind of CNC apparatus we have today (you ever seen a lathe chuck spin a billet at several thousand rpm, only to stop and display a hexagonal bar?), but one has to wonder (as discussed in the link above) that a change of metal composition will complicate things somewhat when it comes to certification…

I do hope the metal compound aspect is a minor hurdle...

edit: One virtue of modern CNC machinery is that one-offs or "prototype" quantities are much more cost-effective today, so I don't think commercial demand will be a large hurdle.

[RJM]

People here may be more than aware of this stuff, but it amazes me.

I recently saw a demonstration of a CNC lathe. As I understood from what we were being told, the machine turned up a sort of kingpin complete with a bored oilway, chamfer, several different diameters, radii etc along its length (including a cam, I think), and it did it all in a few minutes, to an accuracy of a ten-thousandth of an inch. We couldn't really inspect the billet beforenhand or the work afterwards. Actually I'm not sure if the same machine line-bored the oilway or not.

In architectural model-making, there is a machine which reads 3D images from a CAD file, then uses the heat at the intersection of a pair of crossed laser beams to fuse contiguous spots within a 'sandbox' of powdered plastic. Gradually, a physical, 3D model is created, which can be picked up from the powder, drained (if the design is done competently, and used. I think the surrounding powder stabilises the model and keeps is aligned while this is going on.

Extrapolate each of those processes a few decades into the future. The CNC lathe could become a complete combination lathe, drill, milling machine etc (if it's not already). 'Casting' could be done by the 3D fusion process. No more moulds needed! Perhaps even panels could be made like this, meaning no more pressing.

Ally that with flash data storage and 'solid state' displays you might have, just as one example, a control panel made out of one energy absorbing material with solid state instruments perhaps integrated as a surface film. The instruments would communicate with sensors on the engine, control surfaces etc by wireless.

the next step would be to connect the human brain to the avionics, and to arange for 'mental' adjustment of flying controls etc a la Clint Eastwood in 'Firefox'. :8

[spekesoftly]

or small specialist car makers turn out incredible engines. The Mclaren F1 comes to mind.

Your point is well made, but unfortunately the McLaren F1 is not a good example - its 6 litre V12 engine was built by BMW !

[Ozgrade3]

Wasn't the MCLaren F1 Engine built by MBW Motorsport, the same company that builds the M5 and M3 engines?? I always understood that BMW Motorsport was s subsidiary of BMW Motorwerks, ie., a sperate company but who;y owend by BMW.

[fleigle]

What is ironic is that BMW provided engines and reduction gearboxes for the Vimy Project but then withdrew their support when the Vimy came back to the US. The irony being that BMW started out as an aircraft engine builder, and their corporate logo is of a spinning prop disc!. The Lawyers did it!!!

[ShyTorque]

They could have asked Fiat instead of BMW, as some Vimys had engines made by that company.

My late father was apprenticed to Rolls Royce just after the war. One of his stories was of a quarry in Derbyshire where lorry loads of unwanted brand new Merlins were dumped. Unfortunately I don't know exactly where it was, not that they would be any good now.

[barit1]

the next step would be to connect the human brain to the avionics, and to arange for 'mental' adjustment of flying controls etc a la Clint Eastwood in 'Firefox'.

Obviously the pilot is no longer required. :ugh:

[RJM]

Perhaps the pilot is still required, but not in the aircraft. The pilot could be far away in a secure place making tactical decisions based on inputs from his aircraft while the aircraft's computers actually do the flying. We're sort of there now, it seems to me. It could take the fun out of flying, admittedly.

Who knows what the future holds. I'm just a lowly architect and now middle-aged student pilot - but it seems reasonable to extrapolate the present...