What is wrong with the Merlin engine?
Your answer Danny - from "Spitfire - The History" by Morgan & Shacklady.
The pilot notes cover the IX, XI & XVI with Merlin 61, 63, 66, 70 or 266. The only difference in the notes is the boost limits of the different engines.
I guess the short answer to your
would be no, not knowing what the "minor fitments" mentioned may have been, and the designation change to facilitate spares ordering.
They were all XVI Danny.
RW351 XVIE CBAF VAHP 12-7-45 6MU 27-7 631S 28-11-47 C4R(S) 25-4-51
TB379 XVI 6MU 4-2-45 421S 22-3 631S 3-2-49 NES 14-13-54 sold H. Bath 1-5-56 (obvious date error re NES)
TD254 XVI 19MU 12-3-45 74S 341S 10-5 127S 17-5 322S 24-5 631S 8-12-48 AGT Gatwick refurb 24-6-51 NES 14-12 sold E. Smelt 13-6-56
Wonder if those sold are still extant.
TD254
RW351
As production of the F Mk IX Spitfire quickened and Fighter Command squadrons were able to assess the qualities of the new mark, it became evident from combat reports that most interceptions were taking place at a lower level than previously encountered. The Commanding Officer of the Middle East fighter units requested that supplies of Spitfires be limited to the lower altitude examples and the production lines were hard put to meet demand. The final answer to this demand was the F Mk XVI, virtually a Mk IX airframe with the Rolls-Royce Packard Merlin engine.
The designation had not been applied just to differentiate between the UK built engine and the American. The latter unit did have minor fitments to the former and the F XVI designation was an aid to the ordering of spares. Apart from this both aircraft were virtually identical.
The designation had not been applied just to differentiate between the UK built engine and the American. The latter unit did have minor fitments to the former and the F XVI designation was an aid to the ordering of spares. Apart from this both aircraft were virtually identical.
I guess the short answer to your
if a Merlin Spit were re-engined as a Packard Spit, would a IX turn into a XVI ?
1950 April 17...Spitfire IX .TD254
...........18...Spitfire IX .TB379
...........20...Spitfire XVI RW 351
...........27...Spitfire IX .TD254
......July 25...Spitfire XVI TD254
...........18...Spitfire IX .TB379
...........20...Spitfire XVI RW 351
...........27...Spitfire IX .TD254
......July 25...Spitfire XVI TD254
RW351 XVIE CBAF VAHP 12-7-45 6MU 27-7 631S 28-11-47 C4R(S) 25-4-51
TB379 XVI 6MU 4-2-45 421S 22-3 631S 3-2-49 NES 14-13-54 sold H. Bath 1-5-56 (obvious date error re NES)
TD254 XVI 19MU 12-3-45 74S 341S 10-5 127S 17-5 322S 24-5 631S 8-12-48 AGT Gatwick refurb 24-6-51 NES 14-12 sold E. Smelt 13-6-56
Wonder if those sold are still extant.
TD254
RW351
Last edited by megan; 20th Aug 2017 at 05:45. Reason: Pics
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
G-SHWN is listed as a Rolls Royce V-1650 - which presumably identifies it as a Packard; I suppose the CAA simply add the details as supplied by the registration applicant.
The obvious difference in the two pics is RW351 is a low back XVI and TD254 is a high back, wonder if TB379 was a high back?
None of them appear to be survivors but there seems to be the significant remains of an airframe or two reappearing each year so you never know.
The obvious difference in the two pics is RW351 is a low back XVI and TD254 is a high back, wonder if TB379 was a high back?
None of them appear to be survivors but there seems to be the significant remains of an airframe or two reappearing each year so you never know.
And, in the case of a type like the Spitfire that can accommodate various manufacturers and marks of the Merlin/V-1650/Griffon there is no guarantee, if an engine is swapped for another variant, that the registration details will be updated to reflect the change.
Guest
Posts: n/a
megan (#21) and DaveReidUK (#23),
Thanks for the info ! This extract from my Post on Military Aviation Forum; "Pilot's Brevet", Page 169, #3380, shows how it could happen:
"The bane of our lives was the Squadron Aircraft Inventory. You might suppose that an aircraft came (Stores-wise) as one complete unit. No such luck. First you had (say) a Spitfire XVI airframe number so-an-so. This came in under its unique Stores Reference. Then came a Merlin Mk. 266 engine serial number whatever, with its own Stores Ref. We're there now ? Not a bit of it ! As cherry on the cake, we also had 24 spark plugs (God knows what Stores Ref.) to account for. Why, of all the hundreds of parts in an aero engine, this one item should be singled out, is beyond me. Perhaps it was the easiest of all to take out and get lost.
If a complete aircraft came (raise Demand Voucher on Stores) or went (raise Return Voucher), it was relatively simple, although you had to be careful to list all the serial and reference numbers correctly, and not forget the plugs, and enter all the details of the copy Voucher in the Inventory when (if) it came back from Stores . But then there were engine changes, where only the engine details needed amendment, but the plugs had to booked-out and in like everything else. And these, IIRC, could be swapped (Exchange Voucher) from Stores when they got coked-up or whatever. And copy vouchers can easily get lost, or get entered up wrongly.
You'd need a clerk of saintly assiduity to keep up with this. We had a succession of National servicemen of very variable quality. The Inventory became a nightmare. On paper, we had twin engined Spitfires with an astronomical number of plugs, a single-engined Beaufighter with none at all, and - to cap it all - one whole Spitfire went missing (on paper, at least !) It reminded me of Burma, where rumour had it that a certain W/Cdr Chater had worked the system so well that he had at his disposal a personal Harvard and a Tiger Moth that no longer (officially) existed".
Danny.
Thanks for the info ! This extract from my Post on Military Aviation Forum; "Pilot's Brevet", Page 169, #3380, shows how it could happen:
"The bane of our lives was the Squadron Aircraft Inventory. You might suppose that an aircraft came (Stores-wise) as one complete unit. No such luck. First you had (say) a Spitfire XVI airframe number so-an-so. This came in under its unique Stores Reference. Then came a Merlin Mk. 266 engine serial number whatever, with its own Stores Ref. We're there now ? Not a bit of it ! As cherry on the cake, we also had 24 spark plugs (God knows what Stores Ref.) to account for. Why, of all the hundreds of parts in an aero engine, this one item should be singled out, is beyond me. Perhaps it was the easiest of all to take out and get lost.
If a complete aircraft came (raise Demand Voucher on Stores) or went (raise Return Voucher), it was relatively simple, although you had to be careful to list all the serial and reference numbers correctly, and not forget the plugs, and enter all the details of the copy Voucher in the Inventory when (if) it came back from Stores . But then there were engine changes, where only the engine details needed amendment, but the plugs had to booked-out and in like everything else. And these, IIRC, could be swapped (Exchange Voucher) from Stores when they got coked-up or whatever. And copy vouchers can easily get lost, or get entered up wrongly.
You'd need a clerk of saintly assiduity to keep up with this. We had a succession of National servicemen of very variable quality. The Inventory became a nightmare. On paper, we had twin engined Spitfires with an astronomical number of plugs, a single-engined Beaufighter with none at all, and - to cap it all - one whole Spitfire went missing (on paper, at least !) It reminded me of Burma, where rumour had it that a certain W/Cdr Chater had worked the system so well that he had at his disposal a personal Harvard and a Tiger Moth that no longer (officially) existed".
Danny.
G-SHWN is listed as a Rolls Royce V-1650 - which presumably identifies it as a Packard
he had at his disposal a personal Harvard and a Tiger Moth that no longer (officially) existed
CO of a US Army OV-1 unit was coming up for an inspection and went to the trouble of counting his aircraft on the flight line. One too many. In the bar an offer was made to some of our helo pilots to take it off his hands. Wasn't there, so perhaps beer talk, though the tale tellers vouch for authenticity.
Our unit had to move base some 100 miles, so enterprising individuals arranged for the use of some trucks. Problems arose when the owners of said trucks found out about their misappropriation (read stolen). Those ROK troops sure can't take a joke, absolutely no sense of humour.
wonder if TB379 was a high back
Last edited by megan; 20th Aug 2017 at 17:17.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting - reading the progress report on NX611, the oil filters were removed in during winter to inspect for metal suggesting internal component fatigue or failure.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
There is a comment elsewhere that cracks were found in the reduction gear on one of the Hurricanes.
cracks were found in the reduction gear on one of the Hurricanes.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
Far East wan't it? Air CamBodge...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of detail or minor differences between the RR Merlin 60 series and the Packard V-1650 series, I seem to remember reading an account by Raymond Baxter (of BBC fame) describing his experiences flying a Spitfire Mk.XVI on low-level ground-attack missions over Europe in the latter part of the war - I think it was in Spitfire: Portrait of a Legend by Leo McKinstry.
Anyway, Baxter recounted talking to Ronnie Harker after the war, who admitted that various refinements and detail changes were made to the RR Merlin which did not make it 'across the pond' to Packard. These changes were apparently to solve issues with the Merlin 'running rough' at certain power settings, a point Baxter had been keen to ask Harker about, as the power settings in question were those he and fellow Spitfire Mk.XVI pilots used for normal cruise power(!)
Anyway, Baxter recounted talking to Ronnie Harker after the war, who admitted that various refinements and detail changes were made to the RR Merlin which did not make it 'across the pond' to Packard. These changes were apparently to solve issues with the Merlin 'running rough' at certain power settings, a point Baxter had been keen to ask Harker about, as the power settings in question were those he and fellow Spitfire Mk.XVI pilots used for normal cruise power(!)
if a Merlin Spit were re-engined as a Packard Spit, would a IX turn into a XVI
IX installation. #3 is the fill point. #2 would be about the location of the fill point on the 266 above.
Fingers crossed for an event at the beginning of September, weather permitting. Not looking hopeful though.
Gentleman Aviator
SSD, can't think of any that used liquid cooling, all air
"ALL engines are air-cooled ........... but some designers put liquid between the engine and the air!"
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
https://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/news/ind...12C1F5FFC2F90A
"Our investigation has confirmed an issue with a pinion gear in a Merlin engine. With the precise cause of the problem known, each pinion gear is now being inspected to confirm it meets our exacting standards, with the BBMF and industry putting all of our efforts into getting these beautiful aircraft safely back in the air as soon as possible."
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at BBMF Conningsby today and word is they hope to have 2 Spitfires, 1 Hurricane and the Lancaster flying this weekend if all goes well. One Griffon engined Spit is already cleared. Yes the Griffons were checked as well as the Merlins.