Shackleton hardware
Thread Starter
Shackleton hardware
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
Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Thread Starter
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 293 Likes
on
161 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ascot berks uk
Age: 93
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shack 1
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)
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)
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.
My memory might well be faulty.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Carlisle
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather the Packard toolkits supplied with the engines were magnificent, but they were still BA and BSF/BSW.