if by chance you had an online copy of these american conversion blueprints or a location for them i would be most grateful to you for them.
Merlins > Packard vs RR
- Thread starter KraziKanuK
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
if by chance you had an online copy of these american conversion blueprints or a location for them i would be most grateful to you for them.
Well i've read a bit more of this rather heated thread i could of sworn the original idea was best engine to which my two cents worth goes to the merlin Packard or RR for two reasons one no other engine to my knowledge was used so universially Fighter, Night Fighter, Light Bomber, Heavy Bomber, All classes of A/C in the U.K arsenal were powered by the merlin. Moreover this is the only A/C engine i know of to be used in armoured vehicles if versitility = best then there's my vote
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
See my post #96 which brings up an important point -pertinant to the original question- not mentioned previously. (despite the long thread 
)
)Skip M
Airman
What about all of those funny round things in M3 light, M3 medium, and M4 and M4A1 medium tanks?
Skip M
Airman
In reading this thread that the contributers to this forum have their own thoughts and do not repeat the same old lines. That is why I joined this forum.
Not all that much has been brought up on the very different labor forces that each country had to work with. I do not believe that England could have built a Packard Merlin and I know the US could not build a RR Merlin in the numbers needed. England had the highest percentage of machinists in their population in the world. This goes back to the beginning of the industrial age. This type of skilled worker can do a large number of jobs and hand fitting is the norm and the mark of a craftsman. You do not need to give tolerances for this type of worker. As long as you can move them to the industries that you need at the time and you have enough you will get a RR Merlin engine. Germany and Japan allowed many of their craftsmen to be drafted and their quality suffered. The US had a higher percentage of unskilled and agricultural workers then England in spite of our industrial output. Moreover most of our industries were fairly young and when they started they had train a fresh work force. No other country had the success at that time of creating industries with this type of work force. Instead of taking years to make a craftsman you take days or weeks to teach one small job to a person. The skills of the craftsman is broken down into many jobs. This works very well with mass production. This allows you to go into farm country and in a year build a factory and be producing tanks. aircraft, engines, radar, and build thousands of ships. Craftsmen do not like this type of work as it is below them. I do not remember the book but in the 1960's I was reading that the RR Merlin was a little more powerful and smoother. The Packard easer to fix and keep flying. You did not have to hand fit the replacement parts. Both countries built the correct engines for their work forces.
Not all that much has been brought up on the very different labor forces that each country had to work with. I do not believe that England could have built a Packard Merlin and I know the US could not build a RR Merlin in the numbers needed. England had the highest percentage of machinists in their population in the world. This goes back to the beginning of the industrial age. This type of skilled worker can do a large number of jobs and hand fitting is the norm and the mark of a craftsman. You do not need to give tolerances for this type of worker. As long as you can move them to the industries that you need at the time and you have enough you will get a RR Merlin engine. Germany and Japan allowed many of their craftsmen to be drafted and their quality suffered. The US had a higher percentage of unskilled and agricultural workers then England in spite of our industrial output. Moreover most of our industries were fairly young and when they started they had train a fresh work force. No other country had the success at that time of creating industries with this type of work force. Instead of taking years to make a craftsman you take days or weeks to teach one small job to a person. The skills of the craftsman is broken down into many jobs. This works very well with mass production. This allows you to go into farm country and in a year build a factory and be producing tanks. aircraft, engines, radar, and build thousands of ships. Craftsmen do not like this type of work as it is below them. I do not remember the book but in the 1960's I was reading that the RR Merlin was a little more powerful and smoother. The Packard easer to fix and keep flying. You did not have to hand fit the replacement parts. Both countries built the correct engines for their work forces.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I seem to remember that after Packard started building Merlins, they colaborated with Rolls Royce to an extent after modifying the engine for US manufacturing techniques, and made some other improvements and modifications that could be transfered over to Rolls Royce. Some allowing Rolls Royce to standardize many of their components as well, though their overally manufacturing system and design remained distinct to the Packard version. (I believe the Superchargers chosen for the 2-stage version was particularly different from the British version, using components from Wright designed superchargers, while RR added the larger Vulture's supercharger)
Testing by Packard also further helped develop and inmprove the engine in a much shorter time than Rolls Royce would have alone.
The smoother qualities and higher performance of the Rolls Royce versions is certainly often mentioned in anecdotes, as well as some accounts from maintainers and from racing.
I think the comparison of the Merlin 20 series and the V-1650-1 (based on the Merlin 28 ) isn't quite the same though, as the perormance diifference between the two at similar settings should be less significant as the designs were quite similar in performance generally.
However, as I've mentioned the increases in boost limits on the RR Merlin do seem to have been applied to the Packard engine, in fact (according to the P-40F engine refrence sheet I listed above) the Packard engine hadn't even been listed with the normal +12 lbs boost (~54.4" Hg MAP) initially applied to the RR merlin XX. The take-off and WEP are both rated at 1,300 hp at 3,000 rpm with only +10.3 lbs boost (51.1" MAP).
Testing by Packard also further helped develop and inmprove the engine in a much shorter time than Rolls Royce would have alone.
The smoother qualities and higher performance of the Rolls Royce versions is certainly often mentioned in anecdotes, as well as some accounts from maintainers and from racing.
I think the comparison of the Merlin 20 series and the V-1650-1 (based on the Merlin 28 ) isn't quite the same though, as the perormance diifference between the two at similar settings should be less significant as the designs were quite similar in performance generally.
However, as I've mentioned the increases in boost limits on the RR Merlin do seem to have been applied to the Packard engine, in fact (according to the P-40F engine refrence sheet I listed above) the Packard engine hadn't even been listed with the normal +12 lbs boost (~54.4" Hg MAP) initially applied to the RR merlin XX. The take-off and WEP are both rated at 1,300 hp at 3,000 rpm with only +10.3 lbs boost (51.1" MAP).
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
don't remember any flying boats hqaving the merlin
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And in addition to the M3 and M4 tanks already mentioned (using the R-975), the M4A6 used the D-200 (a version of the R-1820, using Diesel) as well as the M6 heavy tank powered by the G-200. (a version of the R-1820, running on gasoline)
Interesting as the six page discussion on stresses in engine blocks is, the answer to the question that started this thread is simple and straightforward and explained in the second post, a case of not comparing like with like.
Three types of Merlin, all from the XX series, were used by the Lancaster Mk I. Merlin XX, 22 and 24. Aircraft fitted with Packard built Merlins were always given a different Mk number.(1) In the case of the Lancaster, when fitted with Packard Merlins it was called a Mk III. Aircraft built under licence outside of the UK were also given their own Mk number and a Lancaster Mk X is essentially the Mk I built in Canada. As you might expect the Mk X also used Packard Merlins. The Mk IIIs and Mk Xs used Merlin 28, 38, and 224, Packard built versions of the XX, 22 and 24 respectively.(2) Engine performance differs according to the source used but generally the Packard Merlin is said to have been slightly more powerful compared to the RR equivalent (see the attachment). Also they were well liked by ground crews because they came with an extensive tool kit. So the difference in performance is due to different variants of the Merlin and not to where, how or by whom they were made. There is a touch or irony here as most Lancaster Mk Is had Merlins built by Ford not RR. However, unlike Packard Merlins, it was difficult to tell if a Merlin was built by RR or Ford. The RAF did not own a single Merlin. They were all owned by RR and leased to the RAF. They had a shelf life of five years or 500 hours after which they were returned to RR and rebuilt as new. Ford did not sell any of the +30,000 Merlins it manufactured at Manchester to anyone other than RR. When RR leased them to the RAF it ensured that no 'Ford' markings appeared on the engine. If it had been different I am sure that, like the Packard Merlins, there would be comments that the ones with the blue ovals weren't quite as good as the genuine RR. As nobody could tell the origin nobody noticed a difference.
The notion that while Packard could only mass produce some sort of inferior clone of the Merlin engineering masterpieces coming out of the RR factories is risible. RR factories at Derby, Crewe, and Glasgow as well as Ford's factory at Manchester were all mass production, using similar naïve work forces as Packard. It was in fact Ford that showed RR how to mass produce the Merlin, and they were built to Ford standards, with much of the machinery to do it designed, built, and supplied by Ford.
When the Ford Motor Company Ltd opened its new factory at Dagenham in 1932, the Chairman, Sir Percival Perry, and his successor Rowland Smith, made sure the Air ministry were aware of their production facilities and expertise. Sir Wilfrid Freeman, Commandant of the RAF staff college at Andover became a friend and encouraged students from the college to visit Ford as part of their management training. Not long after the outbreak of war, Freeman, then the Assistant Chief of Air Staff, suggested that Ford should be asked to build, equip and manage a factory for their own style of production line to produce Merlin engines. The factory would be owned by the government and a licence arranged for the Merlin XX series.
Perry received Freeman's letter on 22nd October 1939. He immediately contacted Rowland Smith and the two of them met Freeman in Whitehall. A team was assembled and on 2nd November they went to Derby to meet Lord Hives the chairman of RR and his production manager H.J.Smith. The two sides already held each other in high esteem and worked well together from the start. RR offered Ford everything other than any actual manufacturing assistance. By mid-November, Smith told Freeman the cost for building and equipping the shadow factory would be in the region of £7,000,000. It was immediately accepted. The actual cost was £6.6 million. An 84 acre site at Eccles in Manchester was selected. Building began in March 1940. Smith was appointed as Controller and part of the former Ford factory at Trafford Park was used for preparatory work by draughtsmen and tool-makers. It was during this period that RR received a shock. The events were described by Sir Stanley Hooker. (3)
"A number of Ford engineers arrived at Derby and spent some months examining the drawings and manufacturing methods. One day, their chief engineer said 'You know, we can't build the Merlin to these measurements'.
"I replied loftily 'I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can't achieve the accuracy'.
"On the contrary, the tolerances are far too wide for us. We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence, all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass production'."
In the following silence, one of Hooker's colleagues asked what Ford proposed. He was told complete new drawings were required, to Ford standards. It took about a year to produce the 20,000 drawings. Hooker went on to say that this led to an enormous success with Merlins coming out "like shelling peas, and very good engines they were too".
In the meantime machine tools that were a vital part of Ford's construction methods had to be designed and built and a new workforce created and trained in a new philosophy of work. Tools to make the tools that made the components had to be designed and procured from specialists. Every one of the companies capable of such work in the UK was working at full capacity. Much was not even available here at that time. A crankshaft machining tool was sourced in the USA. A U-boat put it on the bottom of the Atlantic and the same fate befell its replacement. The third finally got through. Boring equipment clearly labelled 'Ford Motor Company, Trafford Park, Manchester, England' .was shipped from Switzerland through occupied France and hostile Spain to Gibraltar and on to England. The Swiss firm warned the Germans that as a neutral country they were entitled under international law to trade with anyone, and any interference with this right would bring a halt to the supply of any similar equipment to Germany.
The first Ford designed machine tools were made as early as August 1940 and sent to the RR factory at Crewe. While the factory at Eccles was being constructed a shadow factory at Derby was set up alongside the main Derby works. 190 Dagenham employees were sent there and started proving the various machine tools and manufacturing processes. They also spent time working alongside Rolls workers in the main factory to become thoroughly conversant with all the parts of the Merlin. By September 1940 the first building for the new factory were complete. 2,300 w0rker were employed there that winter, including those that had trained at Derby. The whole factory was finished in May 1941 and the first five engines delivered in June. By 1943 Ford was making 200 a week. Ford's investment in machinery and management paid off handsomely. The 10,000 man-hours needed to produce a Merlin dropped to 2,727 in three years. The unit cost fell from £6,540 in June 1941 to £1,180 by the war's end. The percentage of engines rejected by the Air Ministry was zero. Not one engine of the 30,400 produced was rejected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) It is often said that this was because Packard Merlins were built to metric standards and required a completely different set of spares. However, those that restore and repair Merlins say that parts are interchangeable.
(2) Ford in the USA was given the opportunity of building Merlins there. Henry Ford passed up the chance, expressing the opinion that Britain was unlikely to win the war. Packard seized the opportunity and their Merlins were produced on a similar basis to the Ford versions built in Britain, but with Stromberg carburettors and one or two other differences such as silver-lead-indium bearings and a different supercharger drive.
(3) Not Much of an Engineer, Crowood Press.
Three types of Merlin, all from the XX series, were used by the Lancaster Mk I. Merlin XX, 22 and 24. Aircraft fitted with Packard built Merlins were always given a different Mk number.(1) In the case of the Lancaster, when fitted with Packard Merlins it was called a Mk III. Aircraft built under licence outside of the UK were also given their own Mk number and a Lancaster Mk X is essentially the Mk I built in Canada. As you might expect the Mk X also used Packard Merlins. The Mk IIIs and Mk Xs used Merlin 28, 38, and 224, Packard built versions of the XX, 22 and 24 respectively.(2) Engine performance differs according to the source used but generally the Packard Merlin is said to have been slightly more powerful compared to the RR equivalent (see the attachment). Also they were well liked by ground crews because they came with an extensive tool kit. So the difference in performance is due to different variants of the Merlin and not to where, how or by whom they were made. There is a touch or irony here as most Lancaster Mk Is had Merlins built by Ford not RR. However, unlike Packard Merlins, it was difficult to tell if a Merlin was built by RR or Ford. The RAF did not own a single Merlin. They were all owned by RR and leased to the RAF. They had a shelf life of five years or 500 hours after which they were returned to RR and rebuilt as new. Ford did not sell any of the +30,000 Merlins it manufactured at Manchester to anyone other than RR. When RR leased them to the RAF it ensured that no 'Ford' markings appeared on the engine. If it had been different I am sure that, like the Packard Merlins, there would be comments that the ones with the blue ovals weren't quite as good as the genuine RR. As nobody could tell the origin nobody noticed a difference.
The notion that while Packard could only mass produce some sort of inferior clone of the Merlin engineering masterpieces coming out of the RR factories is risible. RR factories at Derby, Crewe, and Glasgow as well as Ford's factory at Manchester were all mass production, using similar naïve work forces as Packard. It was in fact Ford that showed RR how to mass produce the Merlin, and they were built to Ford standards, with much of the machinery to do it designed, built, and supplied by Ford.
When the Ford Motor Company Ltd opened its new factory at Dagenham in 1932, the Chairman, Sir Percival Perry, and his successor Rowland Smith, made sure the Air ministry were aware of their production facilities and expertise. Sir Wilfrid Freeman, Commandant of the RAF staff college at Andover became a friend and encouraged students from the college to visit Ford as part of their management training. Not long after the outbreak of war, Freeman, then the Assistant Chief of Air Staff, suggested that Ford should be asked to build, equip and manage a factory for their own style of production line to produce Merlin engines. The factory would be owned by the government and a licence arranged for the Merlin XX series.
Perry received Freeman's letter on 22nd October 1939. He immediately contacted Rowland Smith and the two of them met Freeman in Whitehall. A team was assembled and on 2nd November they went to Derby to meet Lord Hives the chairman of RR and his production manager H.J.Smith. The two sides already held each other in high esteem and worked well together from the start. RR offered Ford everything other than any actual manufacturing assistance. By mid-November, Smith told Freeman the cost for building and equipping the shadow factory would be in the region of £7,000,000. It was immediately accepted. The actual cost was £6.6 million. An 84 acre site at Eccles in Manchester was selected. Building began in March 1940. Smith was appointed as Controller and part of the former Ford factory at Trafford Park was used for preparatory work by draughtsmen and tool-makers. It was during this period that RR received a shock. The events were described by Sir Stanley Hooker. (3)
"A number of Ford engineers arrived at Derby and spent some months examining the drawings and manufacturing methods. One day, their chief engineer said 'You know, we can't build the Merlin to these measurements'.
"I replied loftily 'I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can't achieve the accuracy'.
"On the contrary, the tolerances are far too wide for us. We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence, all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass production'."
In the following silence, one of Hooker's colleagues asked what Ford proposed. He was told complete new drawings were required, to Ford standards. It took about a year to produce the 20,000 drawings. Hooker went on to say that this led to an enormous success with Merlins coming out "like shelling peas, and very good engines they were too".
In the meantime machine tools that were a vital part of Ford's construction methods had to be designed and built and a new workforce created and trained in a new philosophy of work. Tools to make the tools that made the components had to be designed and procured from specialists. Every one of the companies capable of such work in the UK was working at full capacity. Much was not even available here at that time. A crankshaft machining tool was sourced in the USA. A U-boat put it on the bottom of the Atlantic and the same fate befell its replacement. The third finally got through. Boring equipment clearly labelled 'Ford Motor Company, Trafford Park, Manchester, England' .was shipped from Switzerland through occupied France and hostile Spain to Gibraltar and on to England. The Swiss firm warned the Germans that as a neutral country they were entitled under international law to trade with anyone, and any interference with this right would bring a halt to the supply of any similar equipment to Germany.
The first Ford designed machine tools were made as early as August 1940 and sent to the RR factory at Crewe. While the factory at Eccles was being constructed a shadow factory at Derby was set up alongside the main Derby works. 190 Dagenham employees were sent there and started proving the various machine tools and manufacturing processes. They also spent time working alongside Rolls workers in the main factory to become thoroughly conversant with all the parts of the Merlin. By September 1940 the first building for the new factory were complete. 2,300 w0rker were employed there that winter, including those that had trained at Derby. The whole factory was finished in May 1941 and the first five engines delivered in June. By 1943 Ford was making 200 a week. Ford's investment in machinery and management paid off handsomely. The 10,000 man-hours needed to produce a Merlin dropped to 2,727 in three years. The unit cost fell from £6,540 in June 1941 to £1,180 by the war's end. The percentage of engines rejected by the Air Ministry was zero. Not one engine of the 30,400 produced was rejected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) It is often said that this was because Packard Merlins were built to metric standards and required a completely different set of spares. However, those that restore and repair Merlins say that parts are interchangeable.
(2) Ford in the USA was given the opportunity of building Merlins there. Henry Ford passed up the chance, expressing the opinion that Britain was unlikely to win the war. Packard seized the opportunity and their Merlins were produced on a similar basis to the Ford versions built in Britain, but with Stromberg carburettors and one or two other differences such as silver-lead-indium bearings and a different supercharger drive.
(3) Not Much of an Engineer, Crowood Press.
Glider
Captain
The idea of the Germans watching such a critical piece of equipment go past their noses is almost to good to be true. I am a little suprised that it didn't have a road traffic accident along the way.
The only thing I can add is a number of years ago the BBF Lanc had three RR built engines and one Packard. They mentioned that the only difference was that the Packard engine ran a little warmer than the RR engines. It wasn't much and wasn't a problem, just a point of interest
The only thing I can add is a number of years ago the BBF Lanc had three RR built engines and one Packard. They mentioned that the only difference was that the Packard engine ran a little warmer than the RR engines. It wasn't much and wasn't a problem, just a point of interest
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Good info, I han't known much about Ford's involvement.
Coinsidentally (US) Ford Motors was developing a 1,650 in^2 diplacement V-12 aircraft engine as one of the USAAC's "hyper engine" concept. (I don't know much else except it used an integeral lower rear mounted turbocharger with an electric motor to reduce turbo-lag)
This still doesn't explain why the Packard V-1650-1 was only rated for 1,300 hp at take-off/WEP and 51.1" Hg MAP (+10.3 psi boost). At least that's what a USAAF engine data chart for the P-40F/L says.
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1650-1.pdf
Coinsidentally (US) Ford Motors was developing a 1,650 in^2 diplacement V-12 aircraft engine as one of the USAAC's "hyper engine" concept. (I don't know much else except it used an integeral lower rear mounted turbocharger with an electric motor to reduce turbo-lag)
This still doesn't explain why the Packard V-1650-1 was only rated for 1,300 hp at take-off/WEP and 51.1" Hg MAP (+10.3 psi boost). At least that's what a USAAF engine data chart for the P-40F/L says.
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1650-1.pdf
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I saw a document many years ago by the Brits (War Ministry or similar) on which Merlins were most reliable and the answer was the ones made by the Austin Motor Car company. The main thing as previously discussed was that not all Merlins were same horsepower, or had the same blower output, gear ratio etc.
That said it is probable that Packard did have to redraw the Merlin's because the English use first angle projetion and Americans use third angle projection. I know that when the US started producing Hispano 20 mm cannons from the Brit drawings many parts were not interchangeable for just this reason so it stands to reason that all drawings would have been converted to keep Murphy at bay.
That said it is probable that Packard did have to redraw the Merlin's because the English use first angle projetion and Americans use third angle projection. I know that when the US started producing Hispano 20 mm cannons from the Brit drawings many parts were not interchangeable for just this reason so it stands to reason that all drawings would have been converted to keep Murphy at bay.
This thread goes back a bit. I remember talking to a chap from the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust about Packard engined Spitfires as a place I worked at had a Spit XVI; I said that I'd heard that Packard sent a little tool kit with each engine sent over (can't remember where I heard that?) and the RRHT guy said that Rolls didn't supply such a thing with RR built Merlins because they didn't need them!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
The reason that Roll-Royce manufactured Merlins didn't need them wasn't that they were more reliable, its that the Packard Merlins used slightly different dimensions for things like bolt heads and nuts. As a result, you needed tools operating on American measurements to work on them. When Packard redesigned the engine, they changed most of the measurements to US standards and adapted the engine to use US tooling.
A British workshop would have plenty of tools using British standard measurements, but I'd doubt that they'd have many that would fit standard US dimensions.
glennasher
Senior Airman
Hearsay only, I've been re-reading William Dunn's autobiography (he flew in the RAF and USAF, flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-47s and P-51s in combat, and he swore, several times, that the Rolls-Royce Merlins ran smoother and better than the Packards. That was his impression, anyway, and I'm just repeating what he wrote.
Then again, from other sources I can't recall offhand, that the Packards were better and easier to work on. This was something regarding Lancasters, so it would be different than the Merlins powering fighter aircraft.
Since those opinions are contradictory, I don't know who to believe. Dunn comes off very credibly, though, even if he might be a bit prejudiced. He really, REALLY loved the Spitfires..............
Then again, from other sources I can't recall offhand, that the Packards were better and easier to work on. This was something regarding Lancasters, so it would be different than the Merlins powering fighter aircraft.
Since those opinions are contradictory, I don't know who to believe. Dunn comes off very credibly, though, even if he might be a bit prejudiced. He really, REALLY loved the Spitfires..............
buffnut453
Captain
drgondog
Major
Bill Dunn never flew a P-51 in combat. Interestingly all his kills save two were in Hurricanes - with one in a Spit IIa with 71 Squadron and one in a P-47D - 406FG-9th AF
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
My late father was an RAF instrument fitter and he said that they loved Packards because every engine came with the tool kit. He accidentally forgot to hand back some of the Packard supplied tools when he finished his service and I still have some of them. A set of AF taps and dies, a micrometer, a Crescent adjustable wrench, 2 x sets of Armstrong AF sockets and a set of Waukesha T handle nut spinners, all in war service chromeless finish.
The Coastal Command Lancs he worked on postwar had a mix of Merlins from either UK or US and the engines were identical as far as controls and service life. Pilots were never bothered even when they might have had any combination of UK or US built engines on the same kite
Thanks for that little anecdote there Mongrel; I knew it was true, I just couldn't for the life of me remember where I'd heard about the tool kits.
Still useful today; you can keep the other stuff unless you work on warbirds or old British bikes! You don't use adjustable wrenches on aeroplanes today, they don't call them nut fXckers for nothing!
Still useful today; you can keep the other stuff unless you work on warbirds or old British bikes! You don't use adjustable wrenches on aeroplanes today, they don't call them nut fXckers for nothing!
