The Spitfire MkI was not bad but could barely hold its own really, thankfully some geezer in the USA completely re designed engine and airframe and it managed to stumble along to the end of the war.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Spitfire MkI was not bad but could barely hold its own really, thankfully some geezer in the USA completely re designed engine and airframe and it managed to stumble along to the end of the war.you really must read more than Dr zeus's big print version of my first book about areo-planes !
you might just learn a thing or two.
unless you posted that just to get a reaction, which i think is the real reason
The fact is it was a Rolls Royce engine manufactured under license.
The caption in this photo is describing the recognition features of a Merlin powered P-51 (B, C, D, K), vs an Allison V-1710 as used on the P-51, P-51A and A-36.
The fact is it was a Rolls Royce engine modified and re-dimensioned to accommodate US mass production tooling and techniques and manufactured under license.The fact is it was a Rolls Royce engine manufactured under license.
With Rolls Royce approval because Rolls Royce were doing similar things in UK. The Twin boom Mustang did not have Rolls Royce engines because by that time the war had finished and the USA didn't want to pay the license fee. It is perfectly normal for a license built product to have changes made to allow for differences, the sub contractor may even suggest improvements but that doesn't change the fact that it is license built. The USA built some fantastic engines and aircraft, but didn't have a monopoly, just live with it.The fact is it was a Rolls Royce engine modified and re-dimensioned to accommodate US mass production tooling and techniques and manufactured under license.
Cheers,
Wes
I agree. I was just making the (somewhat nitpicking) point that, from a user standpoint, the engines were equivalent but not identical. Not trying to lay claim to the essential genius of them!With Rolls Royce approval because Rolls Royce were doing similar things in UK. The Twin boom Mustang did not have Rolls Royce engines because by that time the war had finished and the USA didn't want to pay the license fee. It is perfectly normal for a license built product to have changes made to allow for differences, the sub contractor may even suggest improvements but that doesn't change the fact that it is license built. The USA built some fantastic engines and aircraft, but didn't have a monopoly, just live with it.
The fact is it was a Rolls Royce engine modified and re-dimensioned to accommodate US mass production tooling and techniques and manufactured under license.
Cheers,
Wes
Hey guys, how nitpicky can we get? A Merlin is a Merlin is a Merlin, whether it's built in Rolls Royce's legacy craftsman UK shops or Packard's spanking new state-of-the-art plants stateside or in Canada. They all look to England as the mother country.
And Gwaredd, North American-built Mustangs just about exclusively used Packard-built Merlins.
Cheers,
Wes
Well if you want to get REALLY picky, here's a tidbit for you. My engines instructor in A&P school was a crusty old dude who was a Mustang wrench in the 8th AF over across the pond. His (depot level) outfit looked after a wing of B, C, and D Mustangs as well as a few genuine RR-powered photorecon Spitfires that flew in US colors. He said parts support was a nightmare, as the US supply system didn't understand the subtle differences between Packard Merlins and RR Merlins, and the slight differences in machining tolerances that made "equivalent" parts not necessarily "interchangeable" parts.
He said Packard parts were generally "drop-in" replacements in Packard engines, whereas RR parts usually needed a little custom fitting for a RR engine, and serious machine work if they had to be made to fit a Packard. He said you could, in a pinch, put a RR engine in a Mustang, but it required some rework, and you had to tag the plane as an "oddball" to give the squadron mechs a heads up.
Cheers,
Wes
Well if you want to get REALLY picky, here's a tidbit for you. My engines instructor in A&P school was a crusty old dude who was a Mustang wrench in the 8th AF over across the pond. His (depot level) outfit looked after a wing of B, C, and D Mustangs as well as a few genuine RR-powered photorecon Spitfires that flew in US colors. He said parts support was a nightmare, as the US supply system didn't understand the subtle differences between Packard Merlins and RR Merlins, and the slight differences in machining tolerances that made "equivalent" parts not necessarily "interchangeable" parts.
He said Packard parts were generally "drop-in" replacements in Packard engines, whereas RR parts usually needed a little custom fitting for a RR engine, and serious machine work if they had to be made to fit a Packard. He said you could, in a pinch, put a RR engine in a Mustang, but it required some rework, and you had to tag the plane as an "oddball" to give the squadron mechs a heads up.
Cheers,
Wes
Bollocks.
One of the biggest myths out there.
The fact is that Packard redrew the drawings because they had to change them....
....from 1st angle projection
View attachment 519208
View attachment 519209
View attachment 519210
to 3rd angle projection
View attachment 519211
View attachment 519212
View attachment 519213
Multiview projection - Wikipedia
As far as this statement, basically only prototype engines were built "in Rolls Royce's legacy craftsman UK shops". As production of the Merlin was ramped up and production was starting in other facilities (such as Ford UK), it could no longer be built by craftsmen. It was built in modern production facilities, properly toleranced so that parts need not be custom fitted.
Ford UK may have had their hand in setting the tolerances, but that was before Packard entered the frame.
At last - a definitive answer.Bollocks.
One of the biggest myths out there.
The fact is that Packard redrew the drawings because they had to change them....
I've read that UK-built Merlins generally outperformed US-built Merlins when installed identically in identical aircraft, but then I've read other sources saying that's hogwash. Wuzak, what's your take on this?While many of the Merlins' that were built for US the mechs had to do a bit of retrofitting. The best and first were built by the British. Correct?
While many of the Merlins' that were built for US the mechs had to do a bit of retrofitting. The best and first were built by the British. Correct?
I've read that UK-built Merlins generally outperformed US-built Merlins when installed identically in identical aircraft, but then I've read other sources saying that's hogwash. Wuzak, what's your take on this?
Cheers,
Wes
It was a formidable adversary when the allied pilots couldn't figure out how to fight it. Once they did - it was a goner.
Well, the Packard Merlin may have been assembled stateside, but it was still a "foreign" engine, as it suffered from "NDH"(Not Designed Here), so of course it needed a tool kit!Packard always sent a wee tool kit over with every Merlin it supplied to the UK, said that R-R didn't supply tool kits with their Merlins because they didn't need them!
The A6M was still a serious threat right up to war's end, partiularly in the hands of pilots like Iwamoto, Nishizawa, Sugita, and so on.A6M Zero. The aircraft had a lot of shortcomings (fragile structure, no self sealing tanks, engine would quit in a nose over maneuver and more.) Once the US airmen figured out how to fight it, it was done...