The Merlin: The engine that saved the free world?
I have read and heard that the Packard built engines, built to mass production automobile standards, was easier to assemble and more reliable then the Rolls version. Apparantly the tolerances were much more precise so that it just went together like a jig saw puzzle rather than hours with a file.
I found this working on American and British car engines in a past life. The American components came off the shelf and went straight in; with a British engine you had to look for over/under tolerance stamps on the block to check the fitting.
I found this working on American and British car engines in a past life. The American components came off the shelf and went straight in; with a British engine you had to look for over/under tolerance stamps on the block to check the fitting.
Forgive a touch of corporate history but I flew 3000 hours over five years on Lincolns equipped with mainly Rolls Royce Merlin 102 and the occasional RR Merlin 85. . Practically all of these hours were in the tropics of Northen Australia.
In that time I had somewhere around 32 engines failures including several total failures caused by "blow-backs" on take off. The reminder were deliberate feathering of props due to glycol coolant overheating. Other Lincoln pilots had occasional engine failures but I have no record of these. Some of the engine failures in the squadron were due to incorrect engine handling put down to cruising at low RPM and high boost outside the manufacturers recommendations.
Obviously in those days engines were not reliable as todays turbo-jets.
The R2800 was mentioned in earlier posts. I did about 1400 hours on the Convair 440 with P&W R2800 engines. I experienced around three total failures all in the cruise, one runway prop on take off and several un-commanded autofeatherings. Now compare that little lot with over 8000 hours on various versions of the 737 and only one engine shut-down and that was precautionary due to loss of oil tank contents.
In that time I had somewhere around 32 engines failures including several total failures caused by "blow-backs" on take off. The reminder were deliberate feathering of props due to glycol coolant overheating. Other Lincoln pilots had occasional engine failures but I have no record of these. Some of the engine failures in the squadron were due to incorrect engine handling put down to cruising at low RPM and high boost outside the manufacturers recommendations.
Obviously in those days engines were not reliable as todays turbo-jets.
The R2800 was mentioned in earlier posts. I did about 1400 hours on the Convair 440 with P&W R2800 engines. I experienced around three total failures all in the cruise, one runway prop on take off and several un-commanded autofeatherings. Now compare that little lot with over 8000 hours on various versions of the 737 and only one engine shut-down and that was precautionary due to loss of oil tank contents.
I have read and heard that the Packard built engines, built to mass production automobile standards, was easier to assemble and more reliable then the Rolls version.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Rearmament relied extensively on Krupp and other German machine tools; there is a story of some for Castle Bromwich Spitfire factory being hustled by Brits through a German dockyard on 2 September,1939.
1 machine-shop (IIRC, in Stoke) turned all UK Merlin crank-shafts to late-41. Quite normal industrial practice: HDA/Redditch made “nearly all (UK’s 1939-45 10Mn.) forged aero-engine pistons” T.Buttler,Secret Projects 35-50,P133. BTH Ltd/Rugby was long UK's sole-source for Magnetos; so in Germany was a Bosch plant. Hence the attraction of "panacea" targets (e.g ball bearings).
The Man “who put power into the Merlin”, Sir S.Hooker,Not Much of an Engineer,Airlife,84, recounts Ford/Trafford Park bringing to him a problem he assumed to involve tolerances beyond auto-skills; but the reverse: they were seeking inter-changeability, requiring precision beyond RR’s practice, but essential to permit affordable cars to be “repeatable” by skills-diluted labour, alien in Aero.
When in 1940 Henry Ford was confused about his best interests and declined to build Merlin in US, UK chose Packard as licencee: they had designed WW1 Liberty, and had built complex engineering products in volumes stellar to RR's experience. Packard received (really, tons) of Derby drawings and redid the lot, not because RR's were in any way bad, but to fit My Way of doing things. (Westland did exactly the same to turn S.51 into Dragonfly, S.55 into Whirlwind. We still do it: BAe.-built Milan ATM cost a mega-more than from Euromissile, for the same My Way reason).
1 machine-shop (IIRC, in Stoke) turned all UK Merlin crank-shafts to late-41. Quite normal industrial practice: HDA/Redditch made “nearly all (UK’s 1939-45 10Mn.) forged aero-engine pistons” T.Buttler,Secret Projects 35-50,P133. BTH Ltd/Rugby was long UK's sole-source for Magnetos; so in Germany was a Bosch plant. Hence the attraction of "panacea" targets (e.g ball bearings).
The Man “who put power into the Merlin”, Sir S.Hooker,Not Much of an Engineer,Airlife,84, recounts Ford/Trafford Park bringing to him a problem he assumed to involve tolerances beyond auto-skills; but the reverse: they were seeking inter-changeability, requiring precision beyond RR’s practice, but essential to permit affordable cars to be “repeatable” by skills-diluted labour, alien in Aero.
When in 1940 Henry Ford was confused about his best interests and declined to build Merlin in US, UK chose Packard as licencee: they had designed WW1 Liberty, and had built complex engineering products in volumes stellar to RR's experience. Packard received (really, tons) of Derby drawings and redid the lot, not because RR's were in any way bad, but to fit My Way of doing things. (Westland did exactly the same to turn S.51 into Dragonfly, S.55 into Whirlwind. We still do it: BAe.-built Milan ATM cost a mega-more than from Euromissile, for the same My Way reason).
