Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?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.
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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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
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 etcWhen 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
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
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.
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.unfortunately some get the idea that the "V-1650" and the Merlin were different engines.
Resp: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.
You mean this one ?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.
Resp:
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?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 figured it had to do with the YFM-1.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
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.Then time for colourful image!
And if they don't say no, the answer is yes.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.
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.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?