The Merlin....

[Shortround6]

It has to be said that production licences in those times were not given so liberally...... think about DB 601 and Regia Aeronautica. Licenses were given just for proven but rather obsolete engines, like G&R K14 rather than for promising but unproven engines.
And neither in these days.....

By the time an engine was "proven" in the 1930s it was bordering on obsolescence. Now consider in peace time it might closer to two years to build, equip and get a new factory in 'production' than one year and you have a real recipe for obsolete engines.

Please remember that the internal combustion engine as a prime mover for for even a horseless carriage was barely 40 years old in the 1930s ( and 1890s horseless carriage engines were pretty crude) and a very large number (perhaps a majority?) of WW I airplane engines used cast iron pistons. From 1930 to 1940 the power of an aircraft engine roughly doubled for the same size (displacement) engine and that is before 100 octane fuel.

In some cases ( the Russian ones) there were extra clauses in the agreements that covered technical improvements to be supplied by the parent company for several more years after first signing.

 

[davebender]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

How long did Lockheed require to fix P-38 engine/turbo system problems? How long did Heinkel require to determine poorly designed nacelle oil tank was reason for He-177A1 engine fires? How long did U.S. Army require to build a copy of Hs.404 cannon which worked properly? How long did U.S. Navy require to fix Mark 14 torpedo problems? None of these problems were more difficult then trying to mass produce a state of the art V12 engine without prior experience with such engines.

 

[tyrodtom]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

How long did Lockheed require to fix P-38 engine/turbo system problems? How long did Heinkel require to determine poorly designed nacelle oil tank was reason for He-177A1 engine fires? How long did U.S. Army require to build a copy of Hs.404 cannon which worked properly? How long did U.S. Navy require to fix Mark 14 torpedo problems? None of these problems were more difficult then trying to mass produce a state of the art V12 engine without prior experience with such engines.

IN each instance you give, each system had problems, but only some of the time, high fail rates.

If you neglect to drill a necessary oil passage, you'll have 100% failures. A problem of a completely different magnitude.

 

[GregP]

Lockheed didn't take that long to fix the turbo system problems once they could isolate it. It was well masked by the high-aromatic fuel used in Europe and they didn't know that until someone sent a sample home. They found the issue in the next week on the test stand and everything was corrected with a couple if month of that. The issue wasn't a single thing ... it was intake tract combined with incorrect jetting for the fuel being used combined with poor pilot training.

Once they knew the fuel was different, I don't think it was very long until it was ALL fixed. Total time was around 9 months, but 7 of that was spent looking around without any knowledge of the difference in fuel.

So yes, it took some time ... but not all that long once the issue were understood. I once heard a talk on that from a fellow who was there, and his comment was, "Who knew they would be running different fuel? We certainly didn't know!"

Whether or not he was spinning a yarn for a good story, I can't say but, in the end, it DID get fixed.

 

[davparlr]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

How long did U.S. Navy require to fix Mark 14 torpedo problems?

I wouldn't include the Mark 14 in your list. Massive ego would not let the Navy even admit they had a problem for a long time, let alone do any failure analysis.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Mk 14 was USN's problem, IIRC. It took time to locate the issues and then deal with them, but USN people were doing that, instead the people that designed and produced it (U.S. Naval Torpedo Station).

 

[rinkol]

IN each instance you give, each system had problems, but only some of the time, high fail rates.

If you neglect to drill a necessary oil passage, you'll have 100% failures. A problem of a completely different magnitude.

I would suspect this might be a quality control issue - it would be expected that testing required for production approval would discover any such problem and corrective actions taken. Though it does raise the question of the extent to which engines were tested in different countries. One sees references to 50 and 100 hour type tests in some countries, but not others.

RR did have a reputation for intensive testing and effectively using results of such tests to improve engine designs. I spent my career in an R&D organization, and, sadly, I saw many cases where minimal testing was deemed sufficient and, even when major problems were discovered, there was unwillingness to invest in making the necessary changes.

 

[GregP]

The oil hole tyhing was discovered by Cook Cleland after the war. He was flying a Ki-61 that was captured and had an engine failure. Unusually, he removed the engine and disassembled it, and that's how he found the missing oil galley hole.

Heard him give a talk on that incident once back many year ago (1980's). He passed away in 2007 I believe and was a very good guy.

 

[davebender]

USN does not have a monopoly on incompetent leaders.

I'm not saying Japan wouldn't do better but there's no guarantee without the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

What's a Merlin without RR engineers putting some of if not the best superchargers available on them? Not all that much I imagine.