Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Read this thread, then when you have read all of this thread state that you have read all of this thread and absorbed the detail within it. You are trusting sources that claim the British in their mud huts machined thousands of pistons and cylinders then started to measure them to see which could be used to fit one another. It is an insult to anyones intelligence but it suits your PACKARD flag waving exercise. The truth is Packard were the main contractor, to sub contract they needed drawings, in the USA all drawings were in third angle projection and so to avoid any errors all drawings were produced by Rolls Royce in third angle projection so that any problems resulting would be down to Packard not Rolls Royce. That is just international engineering business not a statement of different quality standards. Before the Lancaster was produced in Canada all drawings had to be copied and supplied to Canada for the Canadians to work with, that is how you build things in an engineering project, with drawings. Yes I am telling you it is not true, first you produce your accounts of what you believe to be true, it is a myth. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine was an engineering product, there weren't Packard and Rolls Royce versions except in minor detail because it was a Rolls Royce engine built under license by Packard.Hello PBehn,
I was actually hoping to get a more thoughtful response from you of all people.
I really wasn't discussing the quantities of production by each company but more a matter of design choices with an expectation of production quantities. If you look at even modern low production engines, there were a bunch that were NOT built on production lines but by small teams. The product is higher quality but the product is much more expensive and production numbers are low.
The accounts that I have read state that tolerances were looser with Rolls Royce because parts were expected to be fit to each engine and that Packard did not work in that way and needed tighter tolerances to guarantee parts interchangeability.
Are you telling me this is NOT true?
If not, then what is the truth? I don't know more than what I have read and heard in interviews.
The problem with reading what has already been posted here is that quite a lot contradicts with other sources.
Which sources are to be trusted?
The Merlin may have been designed with many more parts than an allison but the vast majority of extra parts were fasteners. This may have been due to differences in American and British gaskets, surface finish/flatness and design practice.
Cranks of the Meteor were making 2600 rpm vs. 3000 rpm on the Merlin, while the engines itself never have had boost of any type. Thus less power than Merlin, but also much less of stress on engine parts.
A peacetime story, but this reminded me of an event in 2014 when Canada's Packard-powered Lancaster suffered catastrophic engine failure whilst on a tour of the UK, and had to borrow a RR Merlin from the RAF heritage flight. The RAF mechanics were able to fix the Packard engine before the Canadian flew home, but it cost CAD $180K.Packard Merlins, which powered the Lanc X, gave only about 82% of the power of the equivalent Rolls Royce Merlins, and that crews would practically kill to get the RR Merlin
It was "Stranded" at my local airport Teesside. This was Middleton St George airfield during WW2 and the home airport with nearby Croft of Mynarski who the Mynarski Lancaster is named after. It did a few shake down flights before leaving and flew over my mothers house as we set off to attend her brothers funeral, He was an RAF veteran invalided out of BC air ops early in the war. Lancaster leaves after engine repairA peacetime story, but this reminded me of an event in 2014 when Canada's Packard-powered Lancaster suffered catastrophic engine failure whilst on a tour of the UK, and had to borrow a RR Merlin from the RAF heritage flight. The RAF mechanics were able to fix the Packard engine before the Canadian flew home, but it cost CAD $180K.
Engine failure strands Lancaster bomber in Britain
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hami...r-ends-with-180k-engine-repair-bill-1.2774375View attachment 557727
Britain never really did move to the Griffon, there were 8,000 produced but in 50 variants mainly for the late model Spitfires and the Shackleton.When Britain moved to Griffon production did the US show any interest in a Packard version?
Imagine a P-38 Lightning with Griffons. Mind you, the postwar Hornet used Merlins instead of Griffons.
In terms of its most famous uses the P-51, Mosquito and Lancaster probably wouldn't have been greatly improved with a Griffon without making them new planes.Britain probably WOULD have moved to the Griffon had piston engines not been being supplanted by jet engines. I think the Griffons came at EXACTLY the wrong time in history to have made a mark in the aviation world similar to the Merlin simply due to the timing of jet development.
Personally, I'd have wanted a Griffon that turns the other way ... but that's me.
But the Fairey Barracuda suffered, reminding us that the Griffon was intended for the FAA. The postwar Griffon-powered Barracuda was significantly improved over the Merlin model.In terms of its most famous uses the P-51, Mosquito and Lancaster probably wouldn't have been greatly improved with a Griffon without making them new planes.
You can find several ratings for a Packard V-1650-3 and V-1650-7. I have seen the V-1650-3 rated at 1,280 @ 3,000 rated power and 1,600 Hp @ 3,000 max ... and I have also seen the V-1650-3 rated at 1490/1670/1700 ... depends on where you find the ratings. Similar for the V-1650-7, different ratings.
But there was NO Rolls-Royce equivalent to the V-1650-3 or V1650-7. They were Packard engines with different parts than any Rolls Royce engine. Some could be interchangeable, but that was mounting, not internals.
On the other hand, a Merlin 224 is just a Merlin 24 built by Packard (the 200 part), and it has the exact same ratings for either manufacturer, regardless of the carburetor or other parts fitted. I have been around warbirds for a good number of years and have never heard of U.S. Merlins being called "weak" in any way, shape, or form. Neither have I heard of Rolls Royce Merlins being called same.
I HAVE heard that U.S. engines have much better parts interchangeability. Heard that for 20 years, and then someone in here said Rolls Royce fixed that issue rapidly and, by the end of the war, their parts were also interchangeable. I have never been able to confirm that in action because the active warbirds I know about usually have Packard-built Merlins in various states of parts mixes, usually with transport heads, sometimes new-production pistons and rings, and sometimes modern ignition systems. Basically, they are hybrids.
Canadian Car and Foundry manufactured 1,451 Hurricanes between 1938 and 1943. I wonder if those nearly 1,500 Merlins were all sourced from Britain or if CC&F switched over to Packard Merlins by the end.
................Since the transport heads were British designed and built, doesn't that point to interchageability?.....................
What was different about these, Wuzak?