Post War Merlin

[Victor 102]

What were the disadvantages of these engines in civilian service ?

[tail wheel]

RR Merlins installed in new build boats (http://www.extravaganzi.com/claydon-reeves-aeroboat-powered-by-rolls-royce/).

http://www.extravaganzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Claydon-Reeves-Aeroboat-4.jpg

[FlightlessParrot]

RR Merlins installed in new build boats.

Actually installed in real boats, or fantasised?

On the original question, was the Merlin designed for the utilisation needed for commercial flying?

[John Hill]

I expect a lot of "Merlins" of today are really "Meteors"?

Regarding Merlins for civil flying I can only imagine that at one time although the engines were available for little more than scrap value I expect maintenance would have been a heavy burden.

[dhavillandpilot]

What about the Canadian DC4 didn't it have Merlins

Also the Lancastrian, just a bomber with seats

[Noyade]

disadvantagesDave Pagano mentioned his Merlin-powered "Aggressor" speed-boat fuel cost was around $500 for a few minutes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mHEB1pOzR4

http://imgbin.me/image/PAIQSACK.jpg

[Allan Lupton]

Yes the Canadair North Star (which was more than just a DC4) did have Merlin engines as did the Avro Tudor.
They were proper civil aeroplanes as distinct from the semi-military York and Lancastrian.
As said above, even then the utilisation expected in airliner use was many times that of even the most intense military role and coping with militarily acceptable TBOs would be impossible.

[Proplinerman]

I've just read an article about the North Star, in which it said that the main reason the Merlin engines fitted to it were so much noisier than the P and W(?) ones fitted to the DC-4, was that the exhausts on the Merlins emitted air/burnt fuel(?-I'm not very technically minded, hopefully someone here can explain this rather better, if in fact what I read was correct) in "pulsed bursts," rather than some much quieter arrangement on the standard DC-4 engines.


As I understand it, the Merlin was designed as a military engine (at which it was-clearly-superb), but wasn't really suited to a civil airliner role. The only other "airliner" I can think of which had Merlins, was the York, and that was essentially a wartime stopgap derivative of the Lanc.


I'm not old enough to remember DC-4M's in service, but I've read that they were legendarily noisy inside. Hence the crossover exhaust mod fitted to all civil DC-4M's-tho not the RCAF's ones, but then they weren't carrying paying passengers.


Must have been lovely to see and hear a DC-4M taking off-from the ground.

[Wander00]

JH - "Meteor"? Que?

[Allan Lupton]

Proplinerman has not noticed my reference to the Avro Tudor, a real pressurised airliner, of which around three dozen were built.
Exhausts do not deliver pulsed bursts but I seem to recall the Merlin power eggs of the North Star had exhaust stubs which are pretty noisy compared to manifolded exhausts, such as those on the R2000.

For Wander00: The Meteor was the unsupercharged engine based on the Merlin which was developed as a tank engine - most were produced by Rover after the famous swap for Rover's gas turbines. Most of the "Merlin-engined" cars have actually been Meteor-engined as there was a rather easier-to-use power output shaft and I expect the carburettor had more suitable response for road use.

[Midland 331]

B.G. Cramp's book on British Midland describes the purchasing logic behind Derby Aviation's acquisition of Argonauts.

One of the US "majors" was disposing of DC6s at the time, and these were considered. The Argonauts were on offer from the liquidators of "Overseas Aviation (CI) Ltd, hence much less expensive than the "6".

The choice was made on pure acquisition cost alone, not taking into account the TBO ("time between overhaul") differences between the Merlin (850 hrs) and P and W radials (2500+ hrs). Someone didn't use "joined-up thinking".

All figures quoted from memory from Cramp's book. He flew the Argonaut, so I trust his assessment. My memory may not be so reliable, so I stand to be corrected.

Midland were bitten hard by the Merlin's "thoroughbred nature". There were a run of burnt valves/damaged valve guides on the Merlins which were a result of a change of type of oil. As a result of numerous AOG problems, they lost a major IT flight contract, plus considerable reputation.

[joy ride]

Alan, you beat me to the Tank/Meteor connection; interestingly, the Tank it was used in also has a link to aviation, the Comet! The Comet is largely forgotten but was a decent machine, unlike lots of other British tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank

[chevvron]

The Griffon was used in boats too as the 'Sea Griffon'. I had a ride in an RAF rescue launch out of Londonderry in 1963 and it had two of them!

[cockney steve]

Invariably, one can either go for max. power or max. economy (efficiency) Designers trade one off against the other....
Dragsters have huge superchargers and carburettors and usually resonantly-tuned exhaust stacks.....the unburned inlet charge is seen as flames from the exhaust, the valve-opening of which ,is timed to occur after the optimum "push" has done it's thing to the piston.
Injection usually is a lot more fuel-efficient, but the power is usually lacking.

Fuel economy was not high on the list of priorities for war-machines.....statistically, the WarDept. would have known these things were highly unlikely to reach TBO...that we have airworthy survivors ,is ,in itself, quite remarkable.

[Wander00]

You have tripped a brain cell - Meteor was the detuned Merlin that went in tanks, yes?

[joy ride]

The Wiki article about Comet tanks which I linked to above ^ has a link to another Wiki article about the Meteor engine.

[Croqueteer]

The Griffin and I think later Merlins had the prop control unit at the rear end with the feathering lines running down the middle of the "V", so if they threw a con-rod, a not uncommon occurrence, and if the rod went out the middle of the V, the feathering lines were cut resulting in an uncontrollable overspeed and fire, and the need to ditch in less than 5mins, or the wing would have burned off. They were designed for a short fighting life. The Griffin 57 on the Shack had a life of about 640hrs, and I don't think many made that on the wing. Not a commercial engine.

[Wander00]

Croqueteer - is that why there were some Shacks lost in otherwise unexplained circumstances

[Croqueteer]

Most of the piston/rod failures are documented, that's not to say that some of the disappearances could be caused by the engine, although if you spend your working life over the oceans between 100 and 500ft, the odd mystery is to be expected. I have a pic of the one that happened when we were running the oil blockade on Rhodesia, just a big fist thr' the crankcase, fortunately on the outside, but took the front right engine mount with it, leaving the engine nodding in the breeze! Also, by the time that the guy in the starboard beam got out "White smoke from no3!" the skipper had the prop feathered.

[Four Wings]

Re Meteor: I'm away from base at the moment so can't look up model numbers etc. However the Meteor powered the world's best tank of its time (the Fifties) -the Centurion. My memory was that the Meteor was a cut down 12 cylinder version of the. Merlin.
Terrible consumption, which was the Centurion's only drawback - short range, that meant it had to be carried up to the battle zone (my National Service job). That was done with WW2 Diamond Ts, but we also had the first Thorneycroft Antar tank transporters, which were powered by the RR Meteorite, a further 8 cylinder cut down version. They were for carrying the Meteor powered Conqueror tank, at that time the world 's heaviest tank, and the only one capable of stopping the new Soviet Josef Stalin tank.
The Meteorite only produced 250 bhp but the Antar carrying a Conqueror was the world's heaviest road vehicle (recorded in a Fifties Guiness Book of Records). And a great experience to drive!

[fdcg27]

So that's what was wrong with the Tudor!
It seemed such a modern aircraft in most respects.

[Nopax,thanx]

I did read somewhere that after the war, so many Merlins were hanging around that the Ministry of Supply dictated that new airliner designs should be Merlin powered rather than pursue the advantages of the turboprop.

"Commercial" Merlins (the 600 and 700 Series) have what is known as 'Transport heads and banks', a changed design being more suited to long flights at stable power settings.

Quite a number of Spitfires and P-51's flying these days will have these fitted, most likely down to availability, but there's also the theory that the Transport units are a bit more robust, being of a later standard and all that.

[joy ride]

I have heard that the original owner and builder of the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway had a extra loco for personal use which was powered by a Merlin or one of its deritives, and he was notorious for going at high speed along the line. Road, Off-Road, sea, air and rail... quite a versatile engine.
Could be an Urban Myth!

[Heathrow Harry]

back in the '60's I seem to remember some lunatic near Carlisle fitted a Merlin into a Jag saloon body...... - he terminally ran out of road not long after

[ICT_SLB]

Meteors were also fitted in post-war Air Sea Rescue & Motor Gun Boats normally IIRC in a triple installation - at least that what was fitted in an ex-Army boat our local dive club was offered in the late 70s. A book on Vosper-built high speed boats* shows the "Gay" class boats as having "three of the Packard petrol engines" - presumably Merlins - while some of their ASRs had twin marinised Griffons. Deltic diesels were installed in the later "Dark" class boats.

*A Quest for Speed" (c) Vosper Limited 1972 ISBN 0 09 109720 7

[joy ride]

^ I did not know that the Deltic Diesel had been used for anything other than the iconic locos. Complex to service, but what a beast!

[bigal1941]

Sounds like a guy called Jack Dodds who was a gearbox refurbisher. He was based , I think around Epsom way and he certainly put a Merlin in a RR maybe a Jag. There has been a recent article in in one of the Enthusiast Car Magazines that caught my eye whilst browsing in Smiths, I am too much of a cheapskate to buy. He somehow managed to overcome transmission problems, but I am not so sure as silencer. Alan

[RedhillPhil]

^ I did not know that the Deltic Diesel had been used for anything other than the iconic locos. Complex to service, but what a beast!



Used in the Royal Navy's "Hunt" class minesweepers (9 cylinder version), the U.S. navy's Vietnam era patrol boats(18cylinder version) and in the New York Fire Department's water pumps(9 cylinder version). Originally developed for the Royal Navy's motor torpedo boats. Tested in a post war Kriesgsmarine S-boat (inaccurately termed E-boats) two Deltics produced as much power as the three D-B units originally fitted.
The 18 cylinder ones were rated at 1,650 hp for rail use for reliability. They were rated at 2,250 or 2,500 for marine use.

[GQ2]

They are still used in some ships I gather. I was at a dinner party last year and there was a feller there who used to work on them in the UK. An interesting little anecdote he related was that Perkins used to have some Deltic drawings that they used to take to exhinitions etc. They used to challenge budding engineers to spot the 'Nine mistakes' - presumably the source of some of the Deltics problems. Our guest managed to find nineteen - and was promptly offered a job on the spot....:eek:

[Centaurus]

What were the disadvantages of these engines in civilian service ?

The non-shrouded straight-out stubbed exhaust RR Merlin 102 engines were literally an absolute pain to the ears. That was at take-off with +12 psi boost and 3000RPM. It was much worse at emergency boost of +18 PSI. (or lbs/square inch, if you like).

At least the second pilot (co-pilot) during the take off was adept in the Lincoln, at minimising the pain to his ears, by holding his right hand pressed hard against his right ear under his cloth helmet, and with his left hand ensuring the throttles would not slip back. I recall after several hours in the air flying the Lincoln, the racket from the Merlins seemed to numb the ears and it took some time on the ground to get hearing back again. I pity the passengers on the civil Rolls Royce Merlin aircraft.

As someone who had experience on Lincolns flying in the tropics, I regard the engine failure or shut-down rate would have been unacceptably high for civil airline operations. My log book for that period (3000 hours on Lincolns) reveals over 30 engines failures combined, in the RR Merlin 85 and Mk 102. About one third would have been instant failures caused by blow-backs while the remainder were precautionary feathering due severe glycol leaks or over-heating coolant. In marked contrast, with similar hours on radials, I recall about four shut downs.

[cockney steve]

@ bigal 1941.... good, but no cigar!
John Dodds was an automatic transmission specialist -telegraphic address "DODDOMOBILE SURREY" the Merlin -engined monster had a Rolls Cloud radiator shell....Rolls took legal action against him and a fire sealed it's fate....the mechanics still survive in a custom-built Fibreglass body...He lives , with the beast, in Spain.

anecdote.....cruising back through France, comes across a stranded Rolls. Dodds gets an old oil-drum and a door from the ajacent field, opens his boot, which was a fitted, miniature workshop,and rebuilt the gearbox at the side of the road. Dodds happy, extra job was a bonus, owner happy, quick and cheaper repair and little time lost from his hols!

IIrc, he as subject of Sunday Times "driving" mag, a few weeks ago....there's a chance it's online .
ISTR the Packard Merlins were re-engineered, as the RR production was all hand-fitted asn so varied enormously...whereas the Packard machine-toolsturned out very precise and uniform fully interchangeable parts....Myth?..don't know but it was certainly a beautiful ,complex engine.

[India Four Two]

cs,

Not a myth. Stanley Hooker mentioned it in his autobiography "Not Much of an Engineer".

The Packard team told him, much to the shock of the RR engineers, that would have to redo all the drawings because they were not precise enough for mass-production.

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

I flew the Canadian C4, as the endorsement in my licence describes it. In the UK we described it as the Argonaut as named by BOAC, the original operator. The ones I flew were pressurised, with the eyebrow control panel and elements of that system similar to the DC6 as far as I recall. The Merlin engines had cross-over exhausts in order to reduce the volume effect. I don't recall the cabin noise levels being much thought of as a problem though. It was very different from the DC4, but had a similar profile to the casual observer. Quite a number were operated by charter companies, and Derby airways flew them off grass at their Burnaston base. I recall also using grass runways a couple or three times. They were very pleasant to handle, but in somewhere like Bagdad or Sharjah in mid August, the Merlins didn't much like being held in a queue at the holding point. Had to shut down or return to the ramp once....maybe twice. No weather radar, and navigation over water or desert was Consol ( MF), Astro, and even drift sight. ( hole in the floor with graticule if it wasn't too cloudy.)

[tornadoken]

We all know that DC-3 was...what it was, but DC-4 was truly game-changing, due in large part to PW R.2000. When a UK team to US saw it (and C-69 Connie) in 11/42 they were muchly depressed. Q: How in Peace would UK earn $ against such competitors?

A: turbines. So on 4 and 5 April,1944 work was funded on transport derivatives of Halifax (with Bristol Hercules) and Lancaster (with Merlin), Interim, definitive later Marks to have Bristol Theseus or RR Clyde propellor-turbine, then in work for Vickers Windsor Pacific bomber. By the time, 12/44, of the Chicago Conference that led to the regulatory regime for airline business, Avro Type 689 Tudor II seemed fit to match these US products and 79 were ordered for the Kangaroo Route - BOAC/Qantas/S.African A/W. In 4/46 licences to build it were agreed with Avro Canada and GAF/Melbourne. But...

In 1944 Canadian Vickers took a licence to (enhance and build) DC-4: first flight, 15/7/46. Why did they choose Merlin for it? Probably: to expand civil prospects into Sterling Area carriers. Along the way (4/44-4/46) Hives at RR was nagged by Ministers to attend to civil Merlin, which he had down-played: his mind was on turbines. He agreed a fixed price MAP contract to 100 hour Type Test to civil operating parameters, onway to chase R.2000 TBO (which post #11 presents as 2,500 hr cf Merlin 850hr in 10/61). He is reported {IIRC in Pugh's Magic of a Name} to have got the number very wrong and lost a bundle.

Tudor started losing business to C-4M even before 11/4/47 when any/all variants were rejected by BOAC and its Kangaroo partners. But Hercules/Hermes did no better: 25 ordered for BOAC 19/3/47, soon regretted. BOAC's 21/7/48 order for 22 C-4M was $-driven - they wanted more Connies, but Canada set the airframes against its UK Reconstruction Loan and the engines came for £.

So: neither Hercules or Merlin, Hermes or Tudor cut the mustard as credible, economical business propositions. (D)C-4 (and L-0/749) spectacularly did so. Apologists say: economy of local market scale. Well...how many Merlins, Hercules, Halifax, Lancaster had stimulated corporate memory, production learning? No. We wuz not robbed. Peter Masefield's memoirs, Flight Path,Airlife,2002 have a Chapter on his slide rule demonstrating in 1944 their economic illiteracy - breakeven operating cost never attainable. No UK designer had given a moment's thought to that alien notion.

[semmern]

Interesting quote in the April FlyPast issue about the Saunders-Roe Princess, re British post-war attempts at making airliners (with some exceptions, naturally. Comet, Avro RJ, et al): "Like many British aircraft, the Princess proved to be a huge technical success and a monumental commercial failure".

[esa-aardvark]

In my late fathers collection I found the course notes for the Merlin
as fitted to the Tudor IV. Maybe that contains some interesting info.

[tonytales]

From my reading I remember seeing that P&W was worried enough about Merlins re-engining DC-4 that they pushed their R-2180E engine. It never powered any DC-4 but only the SAAB Scania and a helicopter.
However I did see a DC-4 re-engined with Wright R-2600 at KEWR one day. It was on a sales tour by the company who did the conversion (PEMCO?). Its extra 250 hp per engine apparently really pepped up the old girl the salesman said but no one was interested. Wonder what happened to it? The installation It looked good, the engine cowling was not noticeably different from the original P&W R-200O. There were lots of surplus Wright R-2600 around then.

[DHfan]

My late dad spoke highly of the Comet, it was his main steed as a tank driver during National Service.

I'm not sure how you could describe the Meteor as a cut-down 12 cylinder version of the Merlin when they both had 12 cylinders. The biggest difference was the lack of supercharger as tanks don't generally cruise around at 20-30,000 ft.

I saw John Dodds' beast in the flesh in the early '70s. He was filling up at a garage he owned just south of Bromley when I pulled in. It was originally built by Paul Jameson who struggled with finding a suitable transmission and Dodds came up with a solution.
When I saw it it still had the original vaguely Capri-ish body and the RR grille and bumpers. IIRC, RR changed their policy after that, if you wanted a new grille and bumpers you had to hand over the bent ones they were to replace!

Couple of links
The Petrol Stop: The BEAST Merlin Powered Car (http://www.thepetrolstop.com/2010/03/beast-merlin-powered-car.html)

The Beast | Features | evo (http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/228789/the_beast.html)

As he pulled out onto the road, a bloke in a hotted-up Anglia thought he'd have a race. There was a brief growl and the "Rolls" was gone.

ICT_SLB
I'd always assumed the same until a couple of years ago but not Packard Merlins, pre-war designed monsters of, if my calculations are correct, around 40 litres.

Packard V12 Marine Engine (http://www.pt-boat.com/packard/packard.html)

India Four Two
That was Ford saying the tolerances weren't tight enough. Packard may have had a similar problem but they had to redraw them anyway from UK to US standards.

[Allan Lupton]

Yes DHfan that's right.
I couldn't be bothered to take issue with the "cut down 12 cylinder" bit but someone had to! Apart from not being supercharged, the other significant differences between Meteor and Merlin to suit the tank were the direction of rotation and the power output arrangements.
ETA agéd memory has just remembered the Meteorite which was cut down but to 8 cylinders from 12.

As you say it was Ford (Trafford Park, in Manchester) which had production engineering problems with the Merlin long before any transatlantic involvement. However, as Hooker stated "once the great Ford factory at Manchester started production, Merlins came out like shelling peas at the rate of 400 per week

[RatherBeFlying]

My father would pick up me and my sister for summer vacation away from Toronto and best of all my stepfather.

The Merlin powered North Star was seriously noisy and slow.

We much preferred the Viscount - big Windows, fast, but a bit short on range in the early models. Great Falls, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and a long stretch to Toronto and its miseries.

A few decades after, I would take the evening course on the old TCA Viscount simulator. It would not trim out on four, but trimmed nicely on three:p

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

Since the Avro Tudors have been mentioned on this thread, I pass on comment made by a friend who as a Flight Engineer, flew on Tudor IV Bs, which from 'Google' I note would be Merlin 623 engines. Apart from the Lincoln wing connection and noise due to no cross-over exhausts, he mentioned problems with the Roots blowers, the F/E's manual spill valves, and cabin ingestion of misting blower oil. He seems mostly to have flown them with the pressurisation system disabled. After the Tudor, The DC6 must have been bliss, I imagine. http://www.pprune.org/images/icons/mpangel.gif

[tonytales]

Does anyone have any diagrams of the crossover exhaust system used on the North Star Merlins?

As a FAA DEMI at EAL giving oral and practical A&P mechanics exams I examined a highly experienced ex pat Brit down from our YUL base. He was an RAF fitter prewar, worked at BOAC and came to Canada. He had British type ratings on, it seemed, everything. He and I talked airplanes and engines and he said the Merlins had a lot of extra work like washing backfire screens which took a lot of disassembly. Also that crossover meant a lot of extra exhaust plumbing.

I wonder why they didn't use Bristol Hercules on the DC-4M? The TBO quoted here for the Merlin are quite discouraging. Understand the engine choice was made to save dollars in that lean postwar time. So a Bristol engine would have been okay.

While still in school I used to see the Trans Canada North Stars coming into KLGA. Loved their sleek engine look and their sound. Never got to work on any though.

One other question, Did the North Stars/Argonauts have reverse pitch propellers? I know that systemwise they were more DC-6 than DC-4.

[evansb]

According to Larry Milberry's book "The Canadair North Star", the North Stars had no reverse pitch capability. Most North Stars had 3-bladed props, but a few were fitted with four-bladed props.

As the North Star airliner was designed primarily for Trans Canada Air Lines (TCA), a TCA study team was charged with the responsibility for engine selection. TCA and Canadair were both Crown Corporations, (Federal government backed), and the North Star project was deemed important to the Canadian post-war economy.

Regarding specific engine selection, the list of engines considered: P&W R-2000-9 and R-2800-C; Rolls-Royce RM-14-SM and RM-20-SM
(Merlins) and Griffon; the Bristol HE-10 Hercules; and the Wright R-2600-22. The criteria ultimately led to two finalists; the Rolls-Royce RR-14-SM Merlin, and the Pratt and Whitney R-2800-C. The rated power of the RR Merlin is higher than all the other engines under consideration at altitudes above 20,000 feet (up to at least 25,000 feet), where the maximum possible power is essential for realistic trans-Atlantic service. (It also provided a safe margin of performance whilst flying over the Canadian Rocky Mountains). To quote the TCA selection document: "The cruising power used to obtain equal performance will therefore be at a lower percentage of rated power with the RM-14-SM than with any other engine". TCA also had a history with Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, as TCA operated a fleet of modified AVRO Lancasters, (Lancastrians), employed on their trans-Atlantic passenger and mail- express service.
The engine selection was not without considerable political controversy.

The TCA Merlin cross-over exhaust was designed by TCA engineer M.W. "Mac" MacLeod. The BOAC Argonaut cross-over exhaust evolved from Canadair's research, and was different from TCA's. A full description, replete with photos, is in Larry Milberry's book, which is available at Canavbooks.com.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640038/north-star11_zps8eea73b0.png

[Brian Abraham]

Does anyone have any diagrams of the crossover exhaust system used on the North Star Merlins?
Tony, search flightglobal.com as I came across detailed articles (with photos) on the system quite some time ago.

[Noyade]

http://i61.tinypic.com/292pjbm.jpg

[tonytales]

Thanks so much Evansb and noyade. BrianB, will keep trying to get into that website and find thee article. The exhaust crossover is a very nice bit of design work. The required bulge of the top profile of the cowling is less than I would have thought and quite neat. Actually this is a lot neater than the exhaust plumbing on the DC-6 with its myriad of pipes.

No reverse pitch was a problem I imagine in snow. Did any Merlin powered transports have reverse?

Quite surprised that the Merlin had a higher rated cruise power than an R2800 considering the extra 1150 cubic inches of displacement. I shall have to dig into my books about cruise power. I will order that book even though I now have to read using a low-vision reader to blow up type and images.

I worked a lot of DC-4 and DC-6 of various airlines. I thought the R200 was a great engine. It wasn't pushed very hard which probably explains a lot about reliability. One Chilean Airline, CINTA, even regularly used them over the mountains while providing their pax with oxygen. They had the two speed superchargers operational, most companies having locking them in low. So even the straight DC-4 could get up pretty high.

[Midland 331]

One Chilean Airline, CINTA, even regularly used them over the mountains while providing their pax with oxygen. They had the two speed superchargers operational, most companies having locking them in low. So even the straight DC-4 could get up pretty high.

On a similar, but Argonaut-related topic...

My late uncle, Dick Chester, was a "flying spanner" on the Argonaut for BMA, and had some amusing tales, usually related at large family gatherings to much amusement.

Apparently, the pressurisation was quite "leaky", and did occasionally cause problems for some passengers, one actually hallucinating, and being convinced that a skier was outside one of the windows, trying to get in, as they crossed The Alps. And the climb to cross high terrain was always an "interesting" experience, with one captain willing the aircraft along with a frequent "come on, old gal..."

The "high level blowers", as uncle called them, would cause the engine note to change alarmingly when they cut in, causing consternation among the nervous.

Capt Belcher (who was F/O on the Argonaut) told me at my uncle's wake that there were clear signs on the flight desk that the fuselage actually "stretched" when pressurised. I can't recall the precise details, but it related to the seat fit/adjustment on the rails, which varied from on the ground to in the air.

I'm not sure I could stand five noisy and slow hours back from Palma to Manchester on one, as the ill-fated 'HG had almost done before it's misfortune at Stockport. Passengers suffered for their pleasure in those days. And, at the front, there were all the challenges of "unusual" Spanish ATC, basic navaids, frequent SRAs, marginal performance, and hazardous terrain. No "magenta line" in those days...

[camlobe]

I remember when somewhat younger, my father commented that when he travelled fairly regularly on North Star's, they would arrive at their destinations on four while the DC 4's operated by the competition often landed with one feathered. Think the destination he referred to was Hawaii. If any of this is incorrect, it is my failing memory at fault, not the source.

tonytales,

Purely for the sake of accuracy, The difference in CID between Merlin and R2800 is somewhat larger than 750 cubes.

The Merlin, whether constructed by Rolls-Royce, Ford or Packard, had a CID of 1649, generally rounded up to 1650. This side of the pond, it is stated as 27 litres.

The R2800 has a CID of 2800 (45.8 litres) therefore having a capacity 1150 CI (18.8 litres) greater than a Merlin.

Camlobe

[tonytales]

Camlobe,
Shame on me for an elementary arithmetic mistake. I shall blame my eyesight. It only make the cruising power of the Merlin more spectacular as both enigines seem to have been cranking in the area of 1000 hp in cruise, the Merlin needing more revs however. I think the efficiency of the Rolls superchargers may also explain some of that.

[Krakatoa]

I am "almost" certain that the BOAC Argonaut had reverse pitch props.
In a previous life I was stationed at Kai Tak in 1950 and recall the Argonauts arriving and departing every week.
Our "office" was close to the slipway at the threshold of Rw 31. This was the old Kai Tak not the checkerboard Kai Tak. Although Rw 13 was the preferred runway for landing I recall an Argonaut approach and landing on Rw 31. I have no idea the approach limits but once crossed the sea wall a go around was not an option. The Argonaut touched down on the spot and I remember thinking he must glad he had reverse pitch with Lion Rock at the other end.
Another day a USAF C54 left his main wheels at the sea wall and flopped onto the runway. All ran away safely.

[Midland 331]

I seem to recall that Capt. Cramp's book on the history of BMA mentions Argonauts landing at Burnaston (the former Derby Aviation base) and using reverse pitch. Without it, I doubt that they would have made it into the small-ish grass airfield that Cramp describes as "pocket-sized".

[DHfan]

One flew into Panshanger in the early sixties, another unlikely aerodrome for such a large aeroplane.

[Wageslave]

But then the "Merlin" in that charlatan Dodds' "Rolls Royce" was, of course, a Rover Meteor. Which perhaps explains RR's pique.

[DHfan]

If my memory serves me right - and it was 40 years ago so I'm not taking any bets - Paul Jameson, who built the original rolling chassis, was aggrieved that John Dodds was claiming it was a Merlin and vowed to build one that really was a Merlin. I remember seeing a b/w picture in a magazine showing a six wheeled chassis with, I think, a temporary seat mounted on top but after a so far brief google I haven't found anything.

[bigal1941]

Wasn't one maybe two stored at Redhill over a winter in the early 60's. One Pruner wrote about the ruts he made. Don't think it was BM but an earlier version of Tradewinds. Alan

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

Yes, that was probably me. Although I was on Britannias at the time, two of us who had flown G-ALHM within the previous year, had authorisation to move it from Redhill to Castle Donnington on 09MAR66.

During 1964 and 1965, we operated as Air Links. A core group consisting of about four or five; the owner, boss, and admin, and then as far as I recall, a group of engineers, pilots, and a man at Redhill who had the engineering and catering equipment stores. Probably around twenty or so cabin crew available. Personally, I never had a roster or any organised work pattern. I'm fairly sure that all of us were on individually negotiated self employed contracts. A nucleus of engineers had a small office in the 'Beehive' at Gatwick. Main maintenance was Dan Air at Lasham, and I think Aviation Traders at Gatwick. In other words, we were not an Airline organisation on the scale of the other C4 operator, Derby Airways at Burnaston. The four C4 Argonauts ( and one Hermes ) that I knew to be operated ad-hoc by Airlinks; G-ALHW was in freight config, and G-ALHI, G-ALHT, and G-ALHM, were in passenger config. We had nine pilots cleared as Captain, some of whom may have been freelancing for more than one operator. Probably not as many as nine co-pilots. I recall one co-pilot who wore a different coloured uniform with three rings, because he was also a DC3 captain for somebody. One captain flew pre WW2, one was Navy and probably WW2. The others I'm fairly sure were long-time 'Merlinists' from the world of Spitfires and Lancasters. Two at least are mentioned in books. One I noted had a half page obit in the Telegraph. I'm not in a place to check my notes, but I think one or more of the four Aircraft post BOAC had been through the Rhodesian Air Force. The owner of Air Links launched Transglobe sometime in 1965. As far as the pilots I ever flew with or knew, only four of us applied to stay on and become salaried employees.

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

On reflection, I forgot to mention above that we occasionally carried a navigator if legally required. Again, would be on a freelance basis. I recall one co-pilot who also had a nav licence, didn't show up for a nav duty trip out of Gatwick to the Far East, and turned out to be on a trip to Canada for another company.......oops

[Peter-RB]

If I remember correctly the Meteor did not have any Supercharger, and a slight variation on piston dimension compared with the Merlin, there are still a lot of Meteors around and can be picked up pretty cheaply,

I once had a pair of Sea-Griffon engines still attached to seagoing gearboxes, thing is they were also attached to a bloody great reduction box as well as the Forward/reverse system to allow the connection to the Sea churning props, plus they had a big square marinised sump for submerged oil-pump recovery and distribution of lubricants, they weighed about 1.7 tonnes each in that guise, as well as all the G/box system the Superchargers were upside down when compared with the Flying Griffons to allow the cold fresh air from the top of the boat to get into the engine, with all that it would have been too much work to convert them to either Fly or power some sort of land craft, but what piece of engineering for Naval use. I bet they were thirsty rascals too!

Peter R-B
Lancashire

[evansb]

An ex-BOAC Argo three-blader with cross-over..
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640042/Marianski_CanadairCL4_EBB_60_zps9d6648b1.jpg

[bcgallacher]

As a child in the 1950's I flew from Singapore to Heathrow in a BOAC Argonaut -it was the year Don Cockle fought Rocky Marciano. Turned back to Singapore with engine failure.Engine cowling fell off between Kalang airport and Changi when being ferried.Reached Karachi then turned back for another engine change,took off again and turned back again to change another engine. Flying was indeed an adventure in those days.

[BobM2]

Here's a 21st century Merlin powered vehicle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIj2GVfua84

[evansb]

Mike Feeney, at skyviking.net, states that the Canadair C-4/DC-4M North Star/Argonaut did indeed have reversible pitch propellers. Equipped with Hamiltion-Standard "Hydromatic" propellers, the props had the fine-pitch stops moved so as to enable reverse pitch.

Mr. Feeney also concludes that, after considering a myriad of operational conditions, TCA was correct in selecting the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, as a C-4 powered Merlin was 30% faster than the radial engine powered DC-4, plus the Canadair DC-4M had a much higher service ceiling and a lower specific fuel consumption, given a higher power setting. Note that the 622 Merlin was more robust than the war-time Spitfire Merlin. Regardless of Rolls-Royce's efforts in bolstering the Merlin for TCA, after the first year of airline service, it became obvious that the Merlins were maintenance intensive. TCA warranty claims resulted in RR agreeing to produce a quantity of 622 Merlins at a reduced cost as compensation.

For block-to-block times and specific fuel consumption rates, an early Douglas DC-6 is a fair comparison to the Canadair DC-4M. (Bets are off in tropical climes and in a -40 Edmonton cold start).

Cost-per-mile determination? Nearly impossible, as most BOAC Argonaut flights and some early TCA North Star flights were all first-class configuration, complete with berths, hot meals served on porcelain china and silver-ware, plus the services of a purser! Navigators, Radio Operators and the occasional Engineer were de rigueur aircrew as well.. In the mid-fifties, TCA reconfigured several North Stars to a denser all-coach (economy-class configuration) for inclusive Canadian trans-continental service, with a two-pilot and single stewardess aircrew being standard.

In rain, sleet, snow, heat and lightning, the North Star performed yeoman service on many regional high-density routes, such as the Toronto-Montreal; Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal; Toronto-Chicago; Montreal-New York; and the ever popular Toronto-New York route.



Below is a photo capturing a classic 3-bladed, cross-over exhaust mod, "TCA North Star", in the twilight of her long and arduous career. Sitting on a snow covered apron in the deep dark cold of a Canadian winter, (circa 1959-60). 10 years previous, she was deemed the fastest way to cross the Atlantic. Now she awaits, perhaps for the last time, a load of passengers she will fly to Chicago-Midway... after which her interior will be gutted and converted into freighter configuration. Few, if anyone, will lament her passing..
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640047/ACTCANorthStar_zps1ee9ea49.jpg

[Jhieminga]

Found it! There are some Merlin powered vehicles on page 2 and 3 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/410391-where-do-all-old-rolls-royces-go-2.html
Including John Dodd's 'The Beast' and a more recent built version.

[tonytales]

Thanks. A lot of good info there regarding engine choice. The Rolls Merlin powered Canadair DC-4M would certainly be faster than the standard Pratt R-2000 powered Douglas DC-4/C-54. Although the Rolls 620 series Merlin engine had fewer CI in displacement it provided a cruise power of 1,135 hp @ 2,850 rpm @ 23,500 ft in high blower. The Pratt R-2000 only made 700 hp @ 2,150 rpm @ 21,500 ft in high blower in cruise. Of course the the Douglas DC-4/C-54 was not pressurized so wouldn't go that high to spare the pax hypoxia. So the Rolls Merlin was a better choice certainly than the Pratt R-2000. Looked a lot better too. Fuel consumption in cruise for the Pratt R-2000 was 0.42 lb/hr/hp versus 0.45 for the Merlin in cruise. R-2000 was more economical per hour but mainly due to its lower power and, being slower, would have burned more in total.

The high revs and higher boost contributed to the Merlin's lower TBO.

The Bristol Hercules powers matched the Merlin but its weight (760 series) was 600 lbs more so that would have been 2,400 lbs more per aircraft. The R-2000 was the lightest at 1,595 lb, the Merlin 620 series @ 1,720 lbs and the Hercules 780 series @ 2,345 lbs.

Interestingly, Canadair did produce one Pratt R-2800 powered version. Believe it was for Canadian Government VIP transport. Would it have been a DC-6M?

Starting any piston engine at negative temperatures was interesting. The Bristol rep in New York (we were working Britannias) told us of trying to operate Bristol Freighters up North in Canada. He said you could not even pull a cold-soaked Hercules with its sleeve valves through unless it was preheated. Our South American customers used to regularly burn out starters and induction vibrators or ice the plugs trying to start engines in a much milder New York. No experience with Merlins. Were they harder to start?

[esa-aardvark]

My engine manual shows that the "worth" oil dilution system could be
fitted to the the Merlin 620 & 621 for cold operations.Cold start in temperatures down to -40C were possible.

[Centaurus]

Starting any piston engine at negative temperatures was interesting. The Bristol rep in New York (we were working Britannias) told us of trying to operate Bristol Freighters up North in Canada. He said you could not even pull a cold-soaked Hercules with its sleeve valves through unless it was preheated.

In the Sixties, the RAAF had two Convair 440 Metropolitans based at Canberra. Mid winter in Canberra could be cold and so the evening before a Convair was scheduled to fly next morning, it was left in a hangar and heaters placed under the engine nacelles to warm the 40 gallon oil tank. Without that pre-heat, the engines had to be run at idle RPM for up to 20 minutes before engine oil temps reached the minimum of 40 C before run-up. This long time at idle RPM inevitably resulted in spark plug fouling.

[Planemike]

Interestingly, Canadair did produce one Pratt R-2800 powered version. Believe it was for Canadian Government VIP transport. Would it have been a DC-6M?

It was designated Canadair C-5............

Planemike

[tonytales]

esa aardvark mentioned oil dilution. There was provision for it on some of the L-1049D's but it was deactivated. I believe the Navy R7V Connies I serviced at Lockheed New York that were modified for use down in the Antarctic had it activated. They also had a combustion heaters in the nacelle for preheating the oil tank.
(think the Connies were El Piasano and Roadrunner)

Problem with oil dilution, as I recall from hearing, not having ever used it, is that the gasoline mixing with the oil loosens sludge throughout the engine. There is a lot of sludge in the oil deposited in such places as the prop dome on Hydromatics and in sludge caches in the crankshafts and other places in some engines. The dilution freed up some of this sludge and it was required you pull the oil screens after use of oil dilution.

I deeply sympathize with anyone pulling sump plugs and oil screens in -40F as it was bad enough at +5F.

[evansb]

For over 70 years, during winter in Alaska and Northern Canada, the Herman Nelson flameless pre-heater is employed to assist in starting aircraft that have been cold soaked in extreme cold temperatures. Two models I've seen are either diesel/kerosene powered or avgas powered. The heaters are often mounted on skis/skids. The Herman Nelson is also used by Canadian based Kenn Borek Air in their Antarctic operations.

Below is a photo of a sled mounted Herman Nelson heater, warming a Superior Airways Beechcraft Model 18, (ex RCAF C-45 Expeditor),:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640050/HermanNelsonBE18_zpsedf183de.jpg

[evansb]

The AVRO Tudor. B.S.A.A Tudor, G- AHNP, disappeared without a trace over the mid-Atlantic in early 1948:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640052/AvroTudor_zps9acc0ae2.jpg

[Proplinerman]

Re the climb out performance of the Argonaut, here is a passage from ex-BOAC/BA Captain, Peter Duffy's book, "Comets and Concordes (and those I flew before):" heading is "Argonaut departures;" "The departure from Rio was usually on the direct route north to Recife, and not via the harbour entrance. This saved conflict with air traffic at the city airport, and also mileage, but involved flight up a valley over rising ground to the town of Petropolis. The ground rose to match the climb rate of a fully loaded Argonaut, and it seemed as if we were flying up the main street of this town to just clear a large church.........I do not remember many dreams, but have a recurrent vision of this departure, with hills on both sides of the a/c, and involving weaving to avoid roof tops" (!)

[barit1]

The Merlin/Argonaut exhaust mod had a parallel in R-2600 installations. The TBM (nee TBF) had a collector ring, like many radials; but the same engine in the B-25 had short stacks. The difference in noise level is dramatic.

But postwar most B-25s had a half-collector ring installed, for a different reason: the short shacks on the upper cylinders were rain collectors, leading to exhaust valve rusting and failure. Engine covers were mandatory ground equipment.

The half-ring mod alleviated this problem, exhausting low on the outboard side. But the lower cylinders retained their short stacks, and so remained noisemakers.

So if you plan on a joy ride in a B-25, do yourself a BIG favor and stop off at the local apothecary for some ear plugs! :)

[tonytales]

I received my copy of "The Canadair North Star" by Larry Mileberry. It is an excellent read and very informative. A considerable section covers the choice and operating experience of the Rolls Royce Merlin 620 series as the powerplant.
The reasons for choosing the Merlin are clearly laid out and are persuasive. It offered better power at the higher cruising altitude desired than the Pratt R-2000 or even the R-2800. That being said, operationally the choice turned out to be not as good as expected.
First was the sheer noise. Even with the crossover exhaust system which only came along years after the aircraft went into service, it was still noisier inside than than the DC-6. The system did reduce it almost to tolerable levels.
Second, the engine was not as durable as the radials for the day in and day out slog of commercial service. I use the book which quotes authoritative sources. Ultimately, TCA was forced to reduce the power setting in cruise which negated the original reasons for the choice.
The TBO of the Merlin was not up to that of the Pratts. Spare usage and costs, particularly for pistons, rings and cylinder liners was particularly high. Fortunately for Trans Canada (TCA), Rolls had entered into an agreement with TCA known as "Won't be sorry" that committed Rolls to ensuring that the Merlin spares cost would not be no more than those for the radials. In effect, Rolls subsidized the use of the Merlin. This agreement obviously paid off in later years with the choice of the Dart for the Viscounts, Tyne for the Vanguards, Conways for the DC-8 and RB-211 for the L-1011.
It is unclear if BOAC had a similar agreement for their Argonauts and certainly the later operators would have paid heavily.
This does not imply that the Merlin was a bad engine for the North Star as they and their Argonaut cousins did yeoman service all over the world. It was just more expensive an engine to operate.
One final tidbit clearing the matter of reversible props. TCA and the RCAF North Stars did not have reverse pitch props fitted. BOAC's Argonauts did. This explains why some commentators have one experience and others a different one. Depends on who the original operator was.
I recommend the book to anyone wanting insight into a great aircraft and engine.
I still remember being a young teen and leaning over the railing on the observatin deck at KLGA and seeing the elegant North Stars taxiing in and out. They had an announcer in those days on a PA who claimed that American and TCA had daily races from YYZ down to NYC. American with their DC-6 and TCA of course with the North Stars. Sheer hype of course but great fun.

[Brian Abraham]

Just to add to the info, an email I received from David Birch of enginehistory some years ago.In 1945 Rolls-Royce changed its mark number system for its transport and civil engines and allocated the 500-range to the single-stage engines and 600 to the two-stage engines. These COMMERCIAL engines included engines sold overseas to airlines and airforces, ie, they were not ordered on a UK government contract. A great number of these engines were Mk.24s, and these were given the commercial mark number 500. Just to confuse you, if an airline had bought ex-RAF Lancastrians and Yorks with Mk.24 engines in them, then they retained that mark number. But if they purchased spare engines from Rolls-Royce, or ordered new Yorks from Avro then they had Mk.500 engines installed. Many second-hand Lancastrains and Yorks had the transport version of the Mk.24 fitted. This was the Mk.T24-2 in military service AND civil service until the new numbering system was initiated. On overhaul the civil ones usually had their mark number changed to 500.

Any Merlin with a mark number of between 500 and 599 is one of the 500-series.There were a number of them, the highest being 549, but most were variants of the Mk.500 with a dash number to denote the operator and the slight installational differences. Most of the 500-series marks were only experimental/development engines. Mk.502 was the only other 500-series mark that entered service.

There were hundreds of 500-series engines, the vast majority installed in Lancastrians and Yorks. The Mk.500 (without a suffix) was for BOAC, Mk.500-2 was for British South American Airways. The 500-29 and 500-45 engines you mention were installed in the Spanish-built Heinkels and Messerschmitts, the dash number indicating a certain build standard appropriate to those aircraft. There were many more. Remember those Argentinian Lincolns? - they had 621-15 engines.You may find the following of interest Aircraft Engine Performance Analysis at Rolls-Royce (http://enginehistory.org/members/articles/ACEnginePerfAnalysisR-R.shtml)

[Brian Abraham]

Merlin 500 series: Two Speed - Single Stage Supercharger - Identical to Merlin T24-2 but termed Merlin 500 for Civil or Commercial operator

500 B.O.A.C. Lancastrian York
500-2 B.S.A.A. Lancastrian York
500-3 Alitalia Lancastrian
500-4 Skyways Limited Lancastrian York
500-5 F.A.M.A. Lancastrian York
500-6 Silver City Airways Lancastrian
500-20 Fiat G.59
500-21 Flight Re-Fuelling Ltd Lancastrian
500-23 Egyptian Government Lancastrian
500-29 CASA C.2111
500-45 Hispano HA-1112
501 T.C.A. Lancastrian
502
502-1 B.O.A.C. York
504 No Production
530 No Production
539 No Production
549 No Production

Merlin 600 series: Two Speed - Two Stage Supercharger

600 Tudor Prototype (Converted to Merlin 102A)
604 Argentine Government
620 T.C.A. & RCAF D.C.4 M.1
621-1 B.O.A.C. Tudor II
621-2 B.S.A.A. Tudor II, IV, V
621-5 Flota Aerea Mercante Tudor
621-15 Argentine Government Lincoln
622 T.C.A. (Domestic) D.C.4 M.2
623-2 B.S.A.A. Tudor IV
624-10 T.C.A. (Atlantic) D.C.4 M.2
625 No Production
626-1 B.O.A.C. Canadair IV C.4
626-12 Canadian Pacific Canadair IV C.4
630 No Production
631 No Production
640 No Production
641 No Production

Merlin 700 series: Two Speed - Two Stage Supercharger

724-1 B.O.A.C. Similar to Merlin 626-1 with cooling mod.
724-1C B.O.A.C. As Merlin 724-1 with crossover exhaust
722-10 Canadair As Merlin 622-10 with cooling mod.
724-10 Canadair As Merlin 624-10 with cooling mod.

Source: Rolls-Royce Production Drawing Office, February 1953.

[evansb]

As mentioned by tonytales and Planemike, the one-off, (bastardized), Canadair C-5, the Canadian Government's R2800 powered VIP transport:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640075/73_c5_rcaf_zpsd0bdd638.jpg

[tonytales]

It does look peculiar to see a DC-6 vertical fin with a deicer boot on it.
The C-5 must have been fast. We worked a straight DC-6 (not an A or B) that had been re-engined with CB-16 for South American work. It did shake a lot on runup though but was allegedly quite fast.

[evansb]

The Canadair C-5 certainly flew faster and higher than a Douglas C-54, the Canadair C-5 had a max. speed of 320 mph (278 kts), a cruise of 303 mph (263 kts) with a service ceiling of 26,000 ft. and a GTOW of 86 000 lbs. (Heavier than the C-54 and the North Star/Argonaut)
The Rolls-Royce powered DC-4Ms flew even faster and higher than the C-5. The Canadair C-5, however, had a longer range and had a much less noisy cabin. It entered service in 1950 and was the RCAFs premier VIP transport.
She served for 17 years and was sold to an American buyer, where it was registered as N17599.
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640081/1420952M_zps7e71c950.jpg