Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You have 3 questions to deal with. Yes the Griffon was delayed while they concentrated on Merlins but that doesn't mean that the Griffon was completely sorted out, finished testing and ready to go as soon as factory space could be found for it in 1941, early 42. Griffon (single stage) was much heavier than the Allison. It will fit but it is going to be about as much of an engineering job as putting in the two stage Merlin.
It seems to have taken the US about 18 months at BEST to get a new engine plant into production, at worst took a while a longer. Converting from one model to another does go much faster but can still take months. Packard started work on the two stage Merlin in Feb 1942, ran the first test engine in May but delivered the fifth production 2 stage engine in Dec of 1942. Making griffons might be 1/2 way in Between? Yes it is a -12 but there are few common parts.
Don't worry..... you are safe. The Napier was a bit of stretch that went too far. Nice concept and great potential but the cost wasn't worth it. Just look at it's post war success
Now Bristol on the other hand..........
The Griffon was not designed to replace the Merlin. QUOTE]
You sure?
Although the Griffon was designed for naval aircraft, on 8 November 1939 N E Rowe of the Air Ministry suggested fitting the Griffon in a Spitfire. Three weeks later permission was given to Supermarine to explore the possibilities of adapting the Griffon to the Spitfire; in response Supermarine issued 'Specification 466' on 4 December. This decision led to a change in the disposition of the engine accessories to reduce the frontal area of the engine as much as possible As a result the frontal area of the bare Griffon engine was 7.9 sq ft compared with 7.5 sq ft of the Merlin.This redesigned engine first ran on 26 June 1940 and went into production as the Griffon II.
In early-1940, on the orders of Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, work on the new engine had been halted temporarily to concentrate on the smaller 27 L Merlin which had already surpassed the output achieved with the early Griffon.
Had things gone better for us in the early years of WW2 I'm sure that the resources would have been put into the Griffon to develop it. It had a lot of offer 10L, better lubrication all in a compact package.
Cheers
John
BTW, the Hurricane originally had a retractable tail wheel but this was deleted in production aircraft.
The Griffon was not designed to replace the Merlin.
You sure?
Although the Griffon was designed for naval aircraft, on 8 November 1939 N E Rowe of the Air Ministry suggested fitting the Griffon in a Spitfire. Three weeks later permission was given to Supermarine to explore the possibilities of adapting the Griffon to the Spitfire; in response Supermarine issued 'Specification 466' on 4 December. This decision led to a change in the disposition of the engine accessories to reduce the frontal area of the engine as much as possible As a result the frontal area of the bare Griffon engine was 7.9 sq ft compared with 7.5 sq ft of the Merlin.This redesigned engine first ran on 26 June 1940 and went into production as the Griffon II.
In early-1940, on the orders of Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, work on the new engine had been halted temporarily to concentrate on the smaller 27 L Merlin which had already surpassed the output achieved with the early Griffon.
Had things gone better for us in the early years of WW2 I'm sure that the resources would have been put into the Griffon to develop it. It had a lot of offer 10L, better lubrication all in a compact package.
Cheers
John
Yes, I'm sure.
The Griffon wasn't intended to replace the Merlin, though it did in some airframes, most notably the Spitfire. Most Merlin applications were unaffected, however.
Better How?
More power per pound of weight?
Much more important to an aircraft designer/customer than power per liter. nobody was giving out medals/trophies for fastest plane with XXX sized engine either in war or in airline service.
More time between overhauls?
Better fuel economy?
See power for weight. less fuel means bigger war load or more passengers/freight over a given distance.
Less likely to break in flight?
Probably should be first on the list
It begs another question, how would Griffons work in Lancs?
A Griffon VI is about 400lb heavier than a Merlin 20 series. Call it 1600lb all up. If that has to come from the bomb load, is it worth it?
Just a wee addition to this; the Griffon was considered for the Hurricane at one stage and an example was modified to take one in early 1941, but the Air Staff thought that it was not worth the effort and cancelled it.