Packard vs Rolls-Royce Merlins

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by wuzak, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    What are the differences?

    My understanding is that the initial production of Packard single stage engines differed from the equivalent Rolls-Royce engines in minor details only. Such as the sealing between the head and the block. Which was changed to match the Rolls-Royce engines later.

    The two stage engines differed in having a Wright designed epicyclic supercharger drive system, as opposed to the Rolls-Royce Farman type.

    Packard engines going to the USAAF had SAE splined prop shafts, those going to the UK/Commonwealth had SBAC shafts.

    From another thread:

    Packard Merlins were surely built to Rolls-Royce drawings, even if they had to be redrawn for American conventions. So I can't see why Packard Merlins were "built to more stringent standards".


    Apart from the eronious term "file to fit", did Rolls-Royce production Merlins (as opposed to those built in the experimental shop) have parts individually fitted? I have my doubts, especially for engines built by Ford UK.


    Now, the Packard Merlins all had equivalent Rolls-Royce engines, and were rated according to the Rolls-Royce ratings.

    V-1650-1 = Merlin 28
    V-1650-3, -5, -7 were 60 series engines.
    V-1650-9 and later were 100 series engines - with strengthened components.

    An example of the supposed superiority of the Packard built engine was the V-1650-9. With water injection and +30psi boost the -9 delivered just over 2200hp.

    The equivalent Rolls-Royce engine (RM.16SM) was not fitted with water injection, and was limited to +25psi boost and just over 2000hp. With ADI the other 100 series Merlins could, surely, match the 2200hp of the -9?

    Just how much engine development did Packard do on the Merlin?


    Finally, the RM.17SM was cleared for flight at 2380hp with +30psi boost @ 3300rpm (I assume with ADI). It was to be rated at 2200hp @ 2000ft MS gear and 2100hp @ 15,000ft FS gear. I believe both were at +30psi and 3000rpm.

    And the RM.17SM was tested for 15 minutes at 2620hp, +36psi boost, 3150rpm with ADI.
     
  2. pattle

    pattle Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You can have a black cat but there is always someone who claims that their cat is blacker.
     
  3. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I think the "file to fit" was pretty much done away with the British Ford involvement. There may have been a lot less "file to fit" than measuring parts and selecting the best fit. As in measuring the bores of the cylinders and picking the pistons that fit the bores best even if not all pistons would fit all cylinders rather than 'filing' the pistons.

    There were four UK sources and Packard. The UK sources provided over 100,000 engines

    There were Six UK and RAF overseas repair facilities. The UK based repair facilities repaired/overhauled 50,000 engines. The number repaired/overhauled in the overseas facilities is unknown.

    That is a LOT of "filing and fitting". :)

    According to one source not a single engine from the Ford Tafford works failed or had to be torn down and rebuilt for failure to meet specified performance on test.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    ".... No, they were not. There were built to more stringent standards."

    They most surely were built to different standards ..... BSI for the UK builds and American Standard for Packard builds (and De Havilland and AV Roe employment in Canada for Mossies and Lancs).
     
  5. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    In what way?

    If Packards were built to American Standards they would have been fitted in UNC and UNF threads - they, in fact, used BSW and BSF threads.

    BSI and American Standards may have had different tolerances - but the Packard engines would have used the tolerances specified on the drawings. Doubtful that they would have changed them.
     
  6. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #6 Aozora, Oct 24, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
    Here is an analysis of the Packard Merlin's construction; it should help answer several questions:

    View attachment PackardMerlin.pdf

    According to this, Rolls-Royce continually modified the Merlin to make it easier to build on both sides of the Atlantic; Packard helped contribute innovations to the overall design, as well as developing features unique to their version of the Merlin:

    Also attached is a description of how R-R analysed early Merlin performance.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  7. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Thanks for those files Aozora.

    A couple of things I would take issue with:

    That's all good, but they didn't design or develop the 2 piece cylinder block. Rolls-Royce did, and the only reason RR didn't introduce it earlier was because they were busy building engines for the war effort. RR waited until they started 60-series production before they went to the two piece block.

    Packard Merlins did not have a continuously variable supercharger drive. They had two distinct ratios.
     
  8. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I believe there were some "fitted" parts in British Merlins that ran just fine but were not interchangeable. The Packard Merlins were interchangeable throughout.

    I have not heard that Packard or Rolls-Royce Merlins had significantly different time-between-overhaul if operated in similar climatic conditions.

    I HAVE heard the quality of the Packard Merlins surprised the British, who expected they would not be "good," but found out they ran just fine. That is no knock on the British at all. It is rather a natural expectation ... expect the worst and be happy if you are incorrect. At that time, the British had not had a lot of recent things to be "happy" about, and lower than the highest expectations seems quite natural. Hopefully they were pleasantly surprised.

    I wonder how many Rolls-Royce Merlins versus Packard Merlins are running today but really have no idea myself. It isn't a subject that matters a great deal either. Whoever has a running Merlin is probably happy with it if he or she can find parts at all, regardless of the source. Whoever has a FLYING Merlin these days is largely happy to just keep it running well, and hopes the next parts he of she gets won't be even MORE expensive ... but they probably will be.
     
  9. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is explained in the article (page 4):

    Packard started Merlin construction from the outset using their own version of two-piece cylinder block, before switching to the R-R version once R-R had changed to two-piece construction with the introduction of the 61 (from memory the 60 still used single-piece blocks?).

    Not sure what the author was referring to, unless he was describing the Simmonds automatic supercharger control; he was also incorrect in implying that the British 60/70 series all used manual supercharger controls - most also had automatic, barometrically controlled clutches.
     
  10. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    ".... BSI and American Standards may have had different tolerances - but the Packard engines would have used the tolerances specified on the drawings.

    You are correct. I misspoke.

    "An often asked question is; “did Packard replicate the British thread system when they built Rolls-Royce Merlins under license during World War II?” The answer is yes; all threads that were used on the Merlin were accurately replicated by Packard. This would include BSW (British Standard Whitworth), BSF (British Standard Fine), BSP (British Standard Pipe) and BA (British Association). Having said that, however, Packard Merlins> used U.S. built Bendix injection carburetors; PD-16 for single stage engines and PD-18 for two stage engines, both of which used U.S. Unified threads. British built Merlins employed S.U. carburetors using Whitworth threads. The job facing Packard when they undertook manufacture of the Merlin was daunting to say the least. It’s bad enough having to build a complex product like the Merlin but exacerbating the situation was the fact no tool maker in the U.S. made Whitworth taps or dies. Therefore, Packard were forced into making their own. Although this created a significant hurdle to overcome, the effort was well worth it, Packard and Rolls-Royce components were interchangeable.

    [Source]

    http://.com/vb/antique-machinery-history/merlin-engines-rolls-royce-packard-thread-systems-265742/
     
  11. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,339
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    My Dad was an instrument fitter on a Coastal Command squadron post war in Malta. They operated Lancaster mkIIIs which originally came with Packards. By 1946 the Packards where in short supply in Malta so RRs were fitted in there place apparently they slotted into place just fine and aircrew could never tell which engine was fited.

    Also time expired Merlins were broken for parts for Meteor tank engines when there was a shortage of crankshafts and Packard and RR parts were used interchangeablely without any problem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. beitou

    beitou Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Did they sound any different or would that be a product of their mountings and exhaust systems?
     
  13. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    V-12's with similar firing orders have very similar sounds, but the actual sound depends on the exhaust stack fitted. A P-40 exhaust stack sounds different from a P-38 or P-39 (all Allison) and the stacks used on several British planes using Merlins are different-souding from one another, but the basic firing sound and frequency is the same. One particularly noticeable different sound with the Griffon is a normal Griffon Spitfire compared with a Griffon Firefly that has the nigh-fiighter shelves over the stack. It deflects the sound outward and the Firefly with these is VERY loud to an observed compared with a Griffon Spitfire.
     
  14. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Youl'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the engine sounds but there were differences depending on the aircraft they were in

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eBD6tLVOQ

    The P-51D had a distinct whistle, almost a howl...


    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPTIe30hr1E

    The Griffon was altogether gruntier...


    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcCYA68m_w

    and the Allison V-1710 was smoother, more mellow than either the Merlin or Griffon...


    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjZoWU5R9dA

    according to pilots who flew both the Allison engined and Packard Merlin P-51s the Allison was a smoother engine, particularly at lower cruising revs and it could be leaned out more.
     
  15. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No the 2 piece clock was introduced in the XX series (2 speed, single stage) engines. Later versions of the 45 (Spit 5, single speed, single stage) had it to.

    The Merlin 60 (prototype 2 speed, 2 stage) had a single block but all the production 60 series engines were 2 piece blocks.

    The Merlin 28 (Packard version of the RR XX) used their own 2 piece construction, from the Merlin 33 (Packard version of the RR 23) onwards they used the British 2 piece construction.
     
  16. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    If that were the case then the 2 piece block would have been in production in the UK from 1940. Which predates Packard's use of a 2 piece design.

    I am sure that early XXs used the 1 piece block, while later ones got the 2 piece design - around the time they were stting up 60-series production.
     
  17. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    True the XX (and 21) were 1 piece blocks. All the later were 2 piece. That's why I said XX series, should have made myself more clear.
     
  18. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    According to Lumsden the 22 and 23 were also single piece block engines, while the 22A and 23A had 2 piece blocks, but were otherwise the same as the 22 and 23.
     
  19. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    #19 OldSkeptic, Oct 25, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
    According to RR the 22 was a 2 piece block and the 22A a XX conversion. The 23 was reversed cooling for the Mosquito and was 2 piece, the 22A was a 21 conversion.
    The conversions were to a 2 piece block.
     
  20. asma18

    asma18 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    1. The Merlins and Packards differed little, Magnetos, supercharger drive and in fact the Bendix Carb was on the Merlin before Packard
    2. It took Packard 12 monthes to convert the Rolls drawings to American convention
    3. Two piece cylinder heads suggested by Packard manufactured by Rolls and were fitted to both
    4. Rolls/Royce tolerances and specifications were followed to the letter by Packard. Spurious statements have been made that Packard had closer tolerances.
    5. Someone has said the Packard engine achieved over 2000 hp ,from Rolls Royce Merlin Variants V-1650-9 1710 hp combat. And that was the most horsepower from a Packard in WW2
    6. 1 to 4 from Rolls Royce Heritage Trust Derby U.K.
     
Loading...

Share This Page