Air to air...a Spit from a Lib (LOTS of pics)

Scotty G · **Joined:** Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:46 pm **Posts:** 134

You're on the right track, Bill. Quill shaft failure.

On an interesting note, I've been doing a ton of research on Merlins lately, mostly racing versions, for a book due next year.

Packard made substantial advances over the Rolls stuff when they began license producing Merlins during the war. It's been very interesting to learn all of this.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 4:23 pm

Scott, I have not read any books by Packard, but I have read several by and about Rolls Royce,such as NOT MUCH OF AN ENGINEER by Sir Stanley Hooker. He got to be Sir in large part by improving the induction and supercharger intake of the Merlin to add about 300 hp at 25,000 feet. Thus, one of the big advances that the MK IX had as a combat fighter at high altitude over the MK V.
I have never read any claims from a Rolls Royce source that Packard improved and advanced the Merlin over what Rolls had. I'd be a little careful in assuming that.
I have never read or heard, and I spoke to Alex Henshaw, factory test pilot for Supermarine, that any Packard engine ever performed better than the similar model Rolls that it copied. For instance, a MkIX with a Rolls Merlin or a MKXVI with a Packard. When Packard first produced the Merlin, there was a string of engine failures. Despite the American ballyhoo of how they had improved on the Rolls design, those early engines had problems. Eventually Packard made a good engine, perhaps about as good as a Rolls, but I don't see any evidence that it was superior.
There is one area that I am familar with where the Rolls is better than the Packard from a pilot's point of view. In a Spitfire, the mixture control is automatic in proportion to the throttle opening, thus it richens as you add power. So there is one less thing for the pilot to tend to. I don't know why Packard put the more complex controls on a Mustang, for example.

Baldeagle · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 5:10 pm

http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=54

-

Hal B · **Posted:** Fri May 30, 2008 10:43 pm

Great pics Gary! I thought I recognized the Prescott area after about 2 pictures.

And I don't care what anyone says; that's one heck of a nice homebuilt! It even sounds like the real thing from the ground.

Scotty G · **Joined:** Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:46 pm **Posts:** 134

Bill Greenwood wrote:

I have never read any claims from a Rolls Royce source that Packard improved and advanced the Merlin over what Rolls had. I'd be a little careful in assuming that.

Like I said, I've been doing a lot of research, but I wasn't assuming. I don't think you'd hear anything from Rolls about others improving their design. But history books have said different...

Se'st la vie, or however the French spell it.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 3:29 am

Scotty G wrote:

Bill Greenwood wrote:

I have never read any claims from a Rolls Royce source that Packard improved and advanced the Merlin over what Rolls had. I'd be a little careful in assuming that.

Se'st la vie, or however the French spell it.

C'est la vie...baby!..

...Beautiful, and a big-boy-club V-12 to boot..Sweeeet...

Nice photos...

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 8:15 am

Michel C-GNCJ wrote:

Cool pics Gary !

I can't imagine what you would do with a "good" digital camera !!! :wink:

Thanks for sharing again.

Well, this is the camera that took 'em.......

Gary

T33driver · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 10:11 am

retroaviation wrote:

Michel C-GNCJ wrote:

Cool pics Gary !

I can't imagine what you would do with a "good" digital camera !!! :wink:

Thanks for sharing again.

Well, this is the camera that took 'em.......

Gary

Sweet! A good sharpshooter photographer doesn't need a Gucci camera. That's so cool that the CAF apparently hsa WWII era furniture as well.

Pooner · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 10:33 am

Thank you for posting, Gary!

Bob did a fantastic job on creating this airplane, and he's a class-act guy as well.

And, of course, you've got the best photo platform to shoot from, too.

Awesome. Just awesome!

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 10:59 am

T33driver wrote:

That's so cool that the CAF apparently hsa WWII era furniture as well.

Nope, that ol' furniture is at my house. Why? Because I get paid with W.W. II wages. :lol:

Gary

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sat May 31, 2008 8:38 pm

Scott, American history books can claim anything, but I would be very careful in assuming it is true, if it is a case of saying Packard built a better engine than Rolls. I have read of how Packard supposedly had great and precise production. The idea that Rolls did not, is spurious. In the end, a Packard Merlin was a fine engine, and maybe equivalent to a Rolls. But I don't see any evidence that it was any better than a Rolls. Some Spitfires used both Rolls and Packards. Nobody knew more about test flying them, or had more personal experience than Alex Henshaw, and he never said the Packard was better. Is there evidence that Canadian Lancs or Hurris with a Packard performed better than an RAF one with a Rolls? I don't think so. In the early days Rolls had the skew gear problem, which they solved. The early Packards had problems also, they were not as good as Rolls at that time.
Some years ago Ford wanted to improve their cars. The bought and analyzed Mercedes cars. They then made a cheaper copy of the MB suspension and used it in the Taurus. Ford did not improve Mercedes quality, but they did copy it.
A Reno race engine(Packard) a la Strega is a special case, but even so Supermarine had a Rolls engined plane in the 30's that could outrun the modern high tech Pond racer and do it at sea level and dragging floats. Those guys were pretty bright 70 years ago.

Scotty G · **Joined:** Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:46 pm **Posts:** 134

Bill,

I appreciate your fondness of all things RR and Supermarine, but I'm not here to argue or start fights with the residents. I agree RR built awesome engines, the S.6 were fast single-mission airframes, and that Packard simple made some improvements on the Merlin.

Again with the "assume..."

Wink wink.

Have a good one.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Just out of curiosity, how many Merlins did RR build during the war vs. Packard?

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Are the Merlin and Packard identical copies? Are there any parts on one that are NOT interchangeable on the other?

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:00 pm

I am by no means an expert on this engine subject, but I do know the engines aren't exact duplicates. If you look at the prop shaft for instance, the Merlin has a lot of finer splines, the Packard less and thicker ones. Both designs work well. Many parts can and are interchangeable, thankfully. One difference in the various models is what altitude it is targeted for. Mine is a high altitude version, a model 76, the low altitude one is a 66, both are similar to a Packard ---7.
I don't have the figures, but think I recall Rolls building about 52,000 Merlins and Packard about 151,000?

Warbird Information Exchange

Air to air...a Spit from a Lib (LOTS of pics)

Who is online