Post War Merlin
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR Merlins installed in new build boats.
On the original question, was the Merlin designed for the utilisation needed for commercial flying?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
disadvantages
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mHEB1pOzR4
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!