Other Packard Merlin powered aircraft?

[BarnOwlLover]

This pertains to aircraft that were being looked at as using the Packard V-1650 as its powerplant. Of course, there were the Merlin powered P-51s, the early Merlin powered F-82s, and the P-40F/L, and the aborted XP-60s with Merlins before that program went down the radial engine route with the R-2800.

I'm also aware of the Convair XP-81 that initially few with a Merlin prior to the desired turboprop being ready, and the XP-67E Moonbat proposed fighter/recon plane with mixed piston and turbojet power (piston engines were intended to be Rolls-Royce Merlin RM 14SM, Packard V-1650-9 or -11, or two stage Allison V-1710s). And there was references to a document that in 1941 and again later that Lockheed was looking at a Merlin powered P-38.

Does anyone have any details of other projects that I didn't mention, or more details on those that I did aside from the well known P-51s, F-82s and P-40s?

 

[GrauGeist]

Off the top of my head, there was one (of three) XP-63 that was being tested with a V-1650 at one point.

 

[Crimea_River]

Canadian built Hurricanes had Packards.

 

[N4521U]

How many manufacturers were there of the Merlin?
I saw a special about Packard and the Merlin. How they built it there way because they felt RR tolerances were to lose for the Packard factory.
If this was the case then, parts were not interchangeable?

 

[wuzak]

How many manufacturers were there of the Merlin?
I saw a special about Packard and the Merlin. How they built it there way because they felt RR tolerances were to lose for the Packard factory.
If this was the case then, parts were not interchangeable?

That is not correct.

Parts were interchangeable between British and American built Merlins, except where there were specific differences (such as supercharger gear drive on 2 stage Packard Merlins).

 

[GrauGeist]

Ford England is where the tolerances issues came about.

The issue that Packard had (and resolved), is that British blueprints were different than what American manufacturers used.

 

[wuzak]

Ford England is where the tolerances issues came about.

The issue that Packard had (and resolved), is that British blueprints were different than what American manufacturers used.

British were drawn 1st angle and Americans 3rd angle projection, IIRC.

 

[rochie]

Spitfire XVI's had packard merlins.

they were often faster, tougher and longer ranged than plain old RR merlin variants

 

[Shortround6]

Spitfire XVI's had packard merlins.

they were often faster, tougher and longer ranged than plain old RR merlin variants

You forgot longer lasting, quieter, smoother and better looking

 

[rochie]

You forgot longer lasting, quieter, smoother and better looking

your correct, i did !

 

[SaparotRob]

And stays crunchy, even in milk.

 

[rochie]

And stays crunchy, even in milk.

Dude !

 

[buffnut453]

And stays crunchy, even in milk.

With none of that nasty metallic-oily aftertaste one gets with RR Merlins.

 

[Engineman]

Hearsay!

Nothing to chose between any sourced Merlin of a similar standard build according to Alec Harvey-Bailey, R-R engineer.

Eng

 

[SaparotRob]

Hearsay is an important part of my knowledge.

 

[rochie]

Hearsay!

Nothing to chose between any sourced Merlin of a similar standard build according to Alec Harvey-Bailey, R-R engineer.

Eng

Old running joke on here my friend

 

[Engineman]

Old running joke on here my friend

Indeed it is.

Eng

 

[wuzak]

Spitfire XVI's had packard merlins.

they were often faster, tougher and longer ranged than plain old RR merlin variants

Lancaster IIIs also had Packard Merlins.

On occasion Lancasters would end up with a mix of RR and Packard Merlins. They had to be careful where they put the Packard Merlins, because if there were Packards on one side and RR Merlins on the other, the Lanc would fly in circles.

 

[MIflyer]

they were often faster, tougher and longer ranged than plain old RR merlin variants

A book about Canadian units indicated the Merlins in the Mk XVI proved to be rather less reliable.

A college professor I knew flew P-51's in WWII. He said that there was noticeably lower vibration with RR Merlins than with Packards, which he attributed to the RR craftsman approach of selecting pistons individually so that they all weighed as close to the same as possible.

The Packard approach would be more oriented to making sure that the pistons had a lower variation in weight when produced, ala Deming.

Note that there was a huge difference between the V-1710 and the V-1650 when it came to field maintenance. The Merlin had a single piece block. The Allison's gearcase and accessory sections could be removed and the engine could even be converted between right hand and left handed rotation in the field.

When the USAF got the Allison TF-41 version of the RR Spey they ignored the fact that the engine was designed to be built up individually, with assemblies match drilled rather than just assembled out of a bin or parts. Taking the engine apart for overhaul and distributing the parts for cleaning, inspection, and repair without trying to maintain serial number integrity did not yield good results. When I was sent to Myrtle Beach AFB in October 1975 to get their A-7D's back in the air they had 80 airplanes but only 37 engines; OC-ALC was unable to deliver enough engines . The need for frequent engine inspections had resulted in the field units inventing a labor saving approach that resulted in creating the problem I was sent to fix.

 

[wuzak]

A college professor I knew flew P-51's in WWII. He said that there was noticeably lower vibration with RR Merlins than with Packards, which he attributed to the RR craftsman approach of selecting pistons individually so that they all weighed as close to the same as possible.

The Packard approach would be more oriented to making sure that the pistons had a lower variation in weight when produced, ala Deming.