Shackleton hardware

[blue up]

Can anyone enlighten me as to the hardware used to bolt together Shackletons? BSF/Whit/BA or AF? Had production already moved towards the use of 'Colonial' sizes by then? Engines same as airframe?

Thanks

[longer ron]

Probably a bit of everything - including BSP :)

[blue up]

Need to know what spanners to pack.

[NutLoose]

Have a word with

https://www.facebook.com/Wr973/

they just moving theirs NOW..

[Slaine]

Long Marston?, I hope theirs doesnt get left to rot, even though its in a state It must have some bits at least worth saving

[Blue_Circle]

Need to know what spanners to pack.
All of them. Allways.

[spekesoftly]

Given one popular description of the Shackleton, a rivet removal tool might come in handy! ;)

[Arthur Bellcrank]

Engines are BSF / Whitworth.

[blue up]

Thanks.

Was the Griffon developed prior to Packard starting Merlin construction, then? Also, did the Packard Merlin require different spanners to service them and were they no longer interchangeable directly with RR units?

[DHfan]

The Griffon and the Packard Merlin were pretty much at the same time. The first Packard Merlin ran in August '41 and the first Griffon Spitfire, DP845, first flew in November '41.

I gather the Packard toolkits supplied with the engines were magnificent, but they were still BA and BSF/BSW. Packard themselves made the taps and dies as nowhere else had the capacity.

Interchangeability, no idea. The RR-engined Mk.IX Spitfire was a Mk.XVI with a Packard Merlin but whether that was for information or it really mattered I haven't a clue.

Edit: I've just thought. There's a vague memory of different prop. splines so I guess it would really matter.

[stevef]

I read somewhere that to improve production rates, Packard didn't work to Rolls-Royce's time-consuming selective fit standards and their Merlins were none the worse for it.

[DHfan]

Both Ford in the UK and Packard in America redrew the Merlin to mass production standards.

Stanley Hooker, referring to Ford engines, said they came out like shelling peas, and very good engines they were. I imagine the same applied to Packard-built engines.

[treadigraph]

Interchangeability, no idea. The RR-engined Mk.IX Spitfire was a Mk.XVI with a Packard Merlin but whether that was for information or it really mattered I haven't a clue.

At least one UK Spit Tr.IX is flying with a Packard which I suppose technically should make it a Tr.XVI! It was one of the Salt River scrapyard airframes and has a new build fuselage; I can't imagine there would be much difference between mounting a RR Merlin or a Packard example in a Spit, but then again...

[DHfan]

With the benefit of a bit longer to think about it...
When the Canadian Lancaster came over a few years ago, one of the Packard Merlins failed. IIRC, they finished the tour and flew back home with a Rolls-Royce engine borrowed from the BBMF.

Apart from propeller splines, which I only think I remember being different, other ancilliaries such as carburettor, dynamo etc. were definitely different so although it probably didn't make any real difference to a pilot, it did to the stores as spares for one engine wouldn't necessarily fit the other.

[avionic type]

If memory has not gone too far in the mists of time ,the Shackleton 1Was I think; BSF and BA ,I should think all the other marks were the same .
I read that the problems between the Canadian and British Merlins was the wiring looms the Brits had “Breeze “ type bulkhead plugs , the Canadian American they didn’t have a spare loom so had to swop looms ( not a quick job)

[stevef]

It's a long time since my limited Avro maintenance but I don't remember any Shackleton airframe hardware being anything other than British.
My memory might well be faulty.

[Allan Lupton]

We were BSF & BA at de Havilland's in Comet 4 days (late 1950s) and I should think that would have been the industry standard so Avro would have been the same when the Shackleton was built.

[N707ZS]

With the benefit of a bit longer to think about it...
When the Canadian Lancaster came over a few years ago, one of the Packard Merlins failed. IIRC, they finished the tour and flew back home with a Rolls-Royce engine borrowed from the BBMF.
Friends of Durham Tees Valley airport now friends of Teesside airport helped out with that, an interesting week was had by all and some even went on the test flight. Spanners had to be borrowed from old toolboxes for the job.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/balloonphotographs/albums/72157647448841081

[Arthur Bellcrank]

I gather the Packard toolkits supplied with the engines were magnificent, but they were still BA and BSF/BSW.

I have a couple of Blue Point (which became Snap On in later years) BSF ring spanners from a Packhard Merlin toolkit, I used them for twenty years on RR Darts, very slim and indestructible.

[rolling20]

I read somewhere that to improve production rates, Packard didn't work to Rolls-Royce's time-consuming selective fit standards and their Merlins were none the worse for it.
IIRC Packard were quite scathing of RRs build tolerances. Ford's were the same as well.

[DHfan]

Not so much build tolerances, selective fit coped with that, but manufacturing tolerances.

In "Not Much of an Engineer" by Stanley Hooker - highly recommended BTW, to anybody who hasn't read it - he says that Ford came to RR and said they couldn't make engines to RR tolerances.
He assumed RR were the bee's knees and the tolerances were too tight for Ford and was taken aback to find quite the opposite.
IIRC, he said it took Ford a year to redraw the Merlin to mass production tolerances, and then they came out like shelling peas as I mentioned earlier.

[blue up]

Any changes to power output or TBO between the manufacturers?

[Shackeng]

Need to know what spanners to pack.
Which Shack is being dismantled? Or is one being rebuilt?

[oxenos]

Don't forget the rag spanner.