Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[XBe02Drvr]

Frankly my dears I do not give a damn, the simple fact is that no engine went out of a Packard factory in any way shape or form as an engine based on the Merlin without Rolls Royce approval, unless it was a completely different engine.

Well here's a (ignorance based) question. What about marine applications? What little I've read about PT boats has referred to their powerplants as Packard V1650s with no mention of Merlin or Rolls Royce. Does this reflect unlicensed ripoffs, or just sloppy jingoistic authorship?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Milosh]

They were Packards but not Merlins.

Packard 1A-2500 - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

I would also note that the majority of British built MTB/MGBs also used the big Packards. So yes, sloppy journalism seems to be the order of the day.
British also made extensive use of American Hall-Scott engines in coastal craft.

 

[GrauGeist]

Packard got it's start in aircraft engine manufacturing during WWI, with the Liberty L-12 engine.

By the 1920's, Packard had developed their V-12s from that Liberty and one was designated the V-1650, which was close in form to the later licensed V-1650 Merlin but they were not related in anyway. Plus the native Packard V-1650 was an inverted-V engine, as was several other Parckard types.

Here's a photo of a Packard V-1650 (12-A) on display at the USAF museum.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

I totally agree. And those who continue to think that fighting the Japanese in the air was a cake walk after the big carrier battles of '42 are sorely mistaken....

 

[pbehn]

Well here's a (ignorance based) question. What about marine applications? What little I've read about PT boats has referred to their powerplants as Packard V1650s with no mention of Merlin or Rolls Royce. Does this reflect unlicensed ripoffs, or just sloppy jingoistic authorship?
Cheers,
Wes

Probably a bit of both. The V-1650 Merlin must have "merlin" in the name because there already was a V-1650. Some don't see the significance, others want the V-1650 Merlin to be seen as a US engine with only a passing resemblance to the Rolls Royce built version.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Probably a bit of both. The V-1650 Merlin must have "merlin" in the name because there already was a V-1650. Some don't see the significance, others want the V-1650 Merlin to be seen as a US engine with only a passing resemblance to the Rolls Royce built version.

It seems Milosh, SR6, and Grey Ghost have cleared away the fog. I'm guessing some journalist or writer confused the 2500 cu. in. PT boat engine with the (much earlier) Packard v1650 descended from the old WWI Liberty engine and then others copied said culprit and it became a persistent myth. BTW, it seems that earlier 1650 put out barely over half the horsepower of a Merlin.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

It seems Milosh, SR6, and Grey Ghost have cleared away the fog. I'm guessing some journalist or writer confused the 2500 cu. in. PT boat engine with the (much earlier) Packard v1650 descended from the old WWI Liberty engine and then others copied said culprit and it became a persistent myth. BTW, it seems that earlier 1650 put out barely over half the horsepower of a Merlin.
Cheers,
Wes

From what I read the output of the early V-1650 was about the same as the maximum power consumption of the V-1650 Merlin. On this forum it is perfectly normal for people to post "Packard V-1650". It is technically incorrect but everyone knows what it means, unfortunately some get the idea that the "V-1650" and the Merlin were different engines. There were differences but all the differences were agreed by RR, they had to be. This is how license production works, not only would the UK authorities expect it, so would the USAs.

 

[fastmongrel]

When people spout the old myth that Packard redesigned the RRMerlin I like to ask them what thread standards were used in the Packard built engines. It usually shuts them up

 

[pbehn]

When people spout the old myth that Packard redesigned the RRMerlin I like to ask them what thread standards were used in the Packard built engines. It usually shuts them up

It would have been possible to use threads to suit Packard, but the more concessions you make in this direction the more they become different and the less useful the joint project is. I used a USA made ultrasonic system in Saudi Arabia, it was a nightmare, finding Allen keys and bolts, nuts etc

 

[wuzak]

When people spout the old myth that Packard redesigned the RRMerlin I like to ask them what thread standards were used in the Packard built engines. It usually shuts them up

I have seen in claimed that Packard did redesign the Merlin to use US standard fasteners. Which would have been nonsensical, considering that in the initial contract was for 9,000 engines - 6,000 for the RAF and 3,000 for the USAAF.

One thing often claimed is that Packard designed the 2 piece block. They didn't, but they were the first to put it into production, the UK factories changing over later because they couldn't afford a break in production at the time. Packard did design a system for connecting the head and block water passages, but later reverted to the definitive RR system.

 

[GrauGeist]

Another interesting footnote regarding the Merlin - Continental manufactured just under 900 V-1650 engines at their Muskegeon, Michigan plant.

The Merlin on display at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo is a Continental V-1650-7

 

[XBe02Drvr]

From what I read the output of the early V-1650 was about the same as the maximum power consumption of the V-1650 Merlin.

unfortunately some get the idea that the "V-1650" and the Merlin were different engines.

The Packard V1650 (L-12) and the Packard V1650 Merlin WERE different engines, separated by 20 years and several generations of evolving technology, and not related to each other at all, except by nomenclature.
The L-12 was an inverted version of the infamous Liberty engine uprated to 450 HP and manufactured by Packard. It owed nothing to Rolls Royce, whereas the Merlin owed everything. This original V1650 was manufactured in the late teens and early 20s of the 20th century, but some of its descendants were still powering tanks in the early days of WWII.
No wonder there's so much confusion!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GrauGeist]

The V-1650 designation has caused a great deal of confusion and sadly, a few sites seem to have fallen into this trap.
For the record, there was only one V-1650 designation ever used: pay attention guys, this is where details count!

The Packard Liberty 12-A engine was designated V-1650 - NO suffix.

The licensed Rolls Royce Merlin (Packard and Continental) started with V-1650-1 and all subsequent versions followed with the appropriate numerical sequence. That is the difference that many miss.

As we know, Rolls Royce, following British convention, used names and "marks/numbers" for their designations.

So the first American made Merlin, based on the Merlin XX, was the V-1650-1 (because there was already a V-1650) and the British referred to the Packard V-1650-1 as the Merlin 28.

The Merlin 63 was the Packard V-1650-3, the Merlin 66 was the Packard V-1650-7, the Merlin 1xx series was the Packard V-1650-9 and so on.

In the end, there was about 22 Rolls Royce Merlin variants and 8 Packard variants...of course, not all variants (from either RR or Packard were production).

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thanks, GG!

 

[swampyankee]

Packard was a fairly major player in the aero-engine business for a few years after WW1, but was out of the aircraft engine business by 1940. I suspect that its management felt that the market for aircraft engines didn't promise sufficient ROI.

The US engine designation system is based on two very broad parameters: displacement and general configuration. It's not designed to cause confusion, but the Navy and Army's aviation services were not really concerned with the engines' internal details. Engines with the same configuration, displacement, and technology level will be similar in weight, installed volume, and performance, the parameters that matter to customers.

The Merlin was two generations after the Packard V-1650; the displacement was a coincidence.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Tell that to the Spitfire XIV, arguably the best pure fighter of the war, The IX, which could handle anything the enemy threw up against it, the PR.X, XI and XIX, the best photo reconnaissance planes of teh war.

Resp:
For you Spitfire experts. I have a color photo (several years old) of a MkVc with clipped wings, that was restored to flying condition (Englind?) with the 'call letters' AEA, and aircraft number PU 20. It has 9 swatikas just under the cockpit on the L side. Can anyone tell me who the pilot was, and did he actually get 9 kills in the MkV? Thanks.

 

[rochie]

Resp:
For you Spitfire experts. I have a color photo (several years old) of a MkVc with clipped wings, that was restored to flying condition (Englind?) with the 'call letters' AEA, and aircraft number PU 20. It has 9 swatikas just under the cockpit on the L side. Can anyone tell me who the pilot was, and did he actually get 9 kills in the MkV? Thanks.

You mean this one ?

Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk Vb - G-LFVB - Flying Legends

 

[Navalwarrior]

You mean this one ?

Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk Vb - G-LFVB - Flying Legends

Resp:
Yessir! Interesting his. Thanks

 

[Zipper730]

He was an unconventional, loudmouth, insubordinate, PITA who couldn't keep his mouth shut, even when ordered to, as people who have truer vision than their superiors so often are.

I'm curious what he wanted for fighter planes? Did he support the idea of escort fighters, what was his vision of how such a fighter should be?

I remember reading somewhere that the final straw was that he was discovered surreptitiously teaching pilots in his squadron "boom and zoom" tactics to keep them alive in combat

I figured it had to do with the YFM-1.

Then time for colourful image!

This is kind of what I was looking for when it came to performance graphs. The idea was to graph all fighters and bombers of WWII (and for the sake of this argument, attack planes will be classified as bombers), in large graphs, though I was actually planning on going even larger in size (it'd be a zip file). The idea I had in mind was to either use Excel (and there were enough delays in class, that we didn't really master all the features of the program, so graphing curves and stuff, we didn't get to), or another program to make graphs that were highly accurate down to very small tolerances.

I was thinking of making sure all the graphs were in imperial and metric measurements because of the fact that: I'm more proficient with imperial (so it'd be nice to have graphs for axis aircraft performance that are in units I can easily use); the bulk of the world use metric (so it'd be cool to convert UK/US designs into metric charts).

Dave - Several sources including Bodie and DeWitt Coop point to the Lockheed-Kelsey collaboration to provide pylon, plumbing and pylons was not known to Arnold until deployment of 1st and 14th FG was being planned for 8th AF in March/April 1942.

General Bob Olds was the father of the initiative to hang drop tanks on fighters despite entrenched AAC attitudes. Kelsey first proposed to the Fighter Board that drop tanks be designed and provided for the P-36. Arnold rejected the notion for combat tanks but Olds didn't hear a NO for Ferry capability.

And if they don't say no, the answer is yes.

Just a question for any of you with more knowledge of aerodynamics than myself. Is it true that as G force increases the speed of compesability goes down?

The key here to think of is not g-load but lift. Higher g-loads require more lift, more lift results in a higher AoA, all things being equal. This results in a higher velocity over the top of the wings.