Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,696
- Dec 6, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nonsensical Packard did not redesign the Merlin, they merely redrew it to American conventions. There have been plenty of discussions in this forum debunking this myth. Show us your comparative data for speed, cost and maintenanceYes, they did laboriously hand lap the surfaces, and they were oil tight - only once.
As soon as they got out in the field and mechanics did what mechanics do, open up this hand fitted faces regularly, lever open faces with screwdrivers, they leaked like sieves for ever more.
It was a basic failing - Rolls Royce were not production engineering the engines as a mass market commodity.
Packard engineers took one look at a Merlin, burst out laughing and redesigned it like a car engine. Gang milled every surface and chucked a paper gasket in it, built them much faster, much cheaper and much easier to maintain.
The following video of Ford River Rouge pre WWII shows that Ford weighed not just each piston but each piston connection rod assembly. Start at the 18.00 markPart of Hooker's story was he was sitting in his office (shared with another RR official) when one of the men from Ford came in and said they could not build engines with the tolerances listed on drawings. Hooker asked if that was because Ford could not maintain the tolerances. (a bit being a snob about it as he explains in his auto-biography) The Ford man said no, it was because Ford needed much tighter tolerances in order to assemble engines using interchange parts.
You don't build cheap cars in quantity using semi-skilled labor and stay in business otherwise.
That said the Merlin needed pretty tight tolerances for it to work. Any high performance aircraft engine did. But the tight tolerances needed to be specified on the drawings to being with and maintained through manufacture of the parts and through dozens of inspections so that when the parts reach the assemblers 99% (or better) of the parts will fit together with no fitting or selecting. Selecting pistons and con rods gets a bit tricky as each assembly and each group of 12 pistons/con rods has a certain weight tolerance. You don't sit there and "file to fit" it the piston/con rod is too light or heavy it gets put aside and another one is weighed and if it "fits" with the group it is used. When you get enough light (or heavy) piston-con rod assemblies to make a complete engine you can assemble a light or heavy crankshaft assembly and put that in an engine. All the piston-conrod assemblies had a certain weight range they had to fit in in relation to the 12 cylinders used. However the total range of possible weights was larger.
A complete pair of assembled rods, pistons, pins and rings in an engine had a permissible variation was 1 oz. for Merlin II.
Permissible variation of pistons selected for one engine was 1/2 oz.
Permissible variation between any two pairs of connecting rods, pistons, pins and rings fitted to one engine was 1 oz.
There was a considerable amount of fitting/selecting even so, but the stories of "filing to fit" are not true.
The better the manufacturing and in a lot of cases that means better inspection, the more parts that make it to the fitters are in tolerance, and require less selection.
Tolerances are from "Aircraft Handbook" by Fred Colvin 1942 edition section III.
People that tell tales about loose tolerances or how engines were assembled need to look at handbooks that describe actual tolerances and how the engines were torn apart and reassembled. The book has 37 pages on overhauling a Merlin II had is pretty much "guidance" for a man who has gone to school to learn all the basic techniques.
Even with the book I am no more qualified to rebuild a Merlin engine than I am to launch a moon rocket.
From "The Merlin in Perspective":One other issue is that a minute scratch on that perfect mirror finish is likely to seriously degrade fatigue life, much worse than a similar scratch on a normally finished surface.
That was in the early days, some Derby housewives mistakenly used greaseproof paper reserved for Christmas cakes for gaskets, a memo with a bunch of flowers sorted it out.Urban Legend. Early Merlins leaked glycol before the change to pressurized water cooling. Packard Merlims were all built after the change.
Most (all ?) of the engines that used 100% glycol leaked. 70/30 solved a lot of glycol leak problems for engines that used it.Urban Legend. Early Merlins leaked glycol before the change to pressurized water cooling. Packard Merlims were all built after the change.
Pure Glycol has very low surface tension, so it just goes through gaps like they`re not there.Most (all ?) of the engines that used 100% glycol leaked. 70/30 solved a lot of glycol leak problems for engines that used it.
For those are are genuinely interested in how Packard actually built Merlins here is an excerpt from Fedden's mission to America:Nonsensical Packard did not redesign the Merlin, they merely redrew it to American conventions. There have been plenty of discussions in this forum debunking this myth. Show us your comparative data for speed, cost and maintenance
Here's an excerpt from the Fedden mission to America on Allison conrods:From "The Merlin in Perspective":
"Because Packard were less flexible in embodiment of modification, engines from this source used the Mod 399 rod for much longer and ran into a number of characteristic failures. When examined the Packard rods appeared to be well finished with heavy polishing of the radius and associated areas. British experience was that rods free of finishing scores were far less prone to failure and this apparent contradiction was surprising. however , when rods were etched it was found that the polishing operation had swaged material into deep score marks , masking them from visual inspection, and failures could therefore be expected. it was a lesson in the effect of heavy over-polishing."
For those are are genuinely interested in how Packard actually built Merlins here is an excerpt from Fedden's mission to America:
View attachment 665520
While I'm at it here is the Mission's appraisal of Allison:
View attachment 665521
View attachment 665522
View attachment 665524
Possibly ?Who was Col. Vincent?
Many thanks.One assumes:
J. G. Vincent
Vice president of engineering
Packard Motor Company.
Most (all ?) of the engines that used 100% glycol leaked. 70/30 solved a lot of glycol leak problems for engines that used it.
Pure Glycol has very low surface tension, so it just goes through gaps like they`re not there.
You are correct. From The Merlin in Perspective by Alec Harvey-Bailey:Weren't there also sealing issues with the sleeves inside the single piece blocks, hence the move to a separate head design?
Actually, the prototype for the Elco boats was PT-9 which was built in England as British Power Boats PV70. It was powered by three marinized Merlins.PT boats did not use Rolls-Royce engines; they used a marine derivative of a Packard engine designed before the Merlin
As an aside Vosper's pre war boats used Isotta –Fraschini engines which were twice the displacement of a Merlin
I dont know !Just out of curiosity, what was the cost comparison between a Packard Merlin and a Rolls-Royce Merlin?
And I am asking about a complete turn-key engine, ready to be installed.