I worked for a man who was a tool and die maker at Packard.
They received a Rolls Engine, and made a copy, converting everything  over from metric to U.S. dimensions.  I'm not sure if this meant taking,  e.g., 40 mm and switching to 1.6 in,  or to 1 and 5/8.....I suppose it  was done so that suppliers would not have to retool. 
Any comments on this aspect?

 

yes and its total rubbish as the merlin was imperial not metric nothing on a merlin was 40mm or anything merlins tolerance's were as fine as anything being produced at the time in the US, the US drawing used a different layout we used first angle the US used third angle, without correction this would have been a nightmare, I also believe that the method of indicating tolerance on a drawing were different

 

Packard were amazing engineers and did produce improvements to what was a an RR design it is conveniently forgotten on your side of the pond all the changes RR made that were incorporated into Packard's including the improvements in supercharging, and I can find no source that the intercooler was in anyway a US design (glycol was in common usage as a coolant pre-war

 

if Packard was so amazing why was it that the premier engine they made was a licensed copy of the merlin were was its replacement? RR had the Griffon Packard had?

 

as for the P80, exactly what engine did it have? oh yes the de Havilland H-1 B at first then Rolls-Royce Derwent,'s  as you US could not get your version working properly (J33) and again do you believe that it was done without help from Britain despite the UK having a lead in such design?

 

 

When the ACTUAL (Merlin XX) engine did not match tolerance specifications as called in the blueprints? Of course Packard engineers redrew  to their TIGHTER American tolerances. The Americans at the time were world leaders in machine tool manufacture technique, and Packard was their BEST.

 

machine tool manufacture yes - production of fine tolerance engineering no

 

Let's see what else did Packard do in addition to what I mentioned to the Merlin they received?

 

The RIGHT Bendix pressurized  carburetor they chose... to correct the serious aspiration icing and invert angle fault they found. It was that BENDIX that replaced the (Beatrice Shilling) Tilly orifice which was a British stopgap solution for the wrong Stromburg they chose.

they didn't have stromburg carbs on the early Spits as they were NOT available by restrictions by the US GOVENMENT they used SU not Stromberg you cannot choose something that is not available to you

 

Packard then used a Wright two speed  impeller quill gearing for the supercharger. That corrected a vacuum vapor lock that could sometimes embarrass a British pilot when he forgot to adjust the British designed supercharger (better altitude match).  Engine cutout at 4000 meters and WHOOPSIE! hit the silk,

have you a source for this as its something I have never heard of before certainly nothing in any of the histories of Spits and Hurricanes I have read refer to such a thing

 

when that happened with the British impellers as the circuit vapor locked.

again you mention this and as I said I have never seen such reports

 

 After the impeller change, not a problem any more. Should I mention the steel filings and RUST in the crankcase problem?

yes do as again its new to me, what is your source?

Packard solved those in the Merlin they got, and passed that on to RR.

 

 Not Ford. Henry, the anglo-phobe forbade any technology transfer. 

Ford produced merlins that were 100% interchangeable with RR using the exact same machinery as Packard, Ford;s first overseas plant was in Manchester England making Model Ts - ford wasn't an Anglophobe he actively sort the RR merlin contract but didn't believe a mass production engine could be built to those tolerance when proved wrong he tried to out do RR/Packard by producing his v12 (this was sop with ford he did the same when he failed to buy Ferrari and built the GT40)

Note what is in red..."I'm not sure."

 

He isn't. I am. The tolerances were expressed in hundredths of the inch to the base 8. Packard converted to base 16 which still is the American die gauge.

 

yes and its total rubbish as the merlin was imperial not metric nothing on a merlin was 40mm or anything merlins tolerance's were as fine as anything being produced at the time in the US, the US drawing used a different layout we used first angle the US used third angle, without correction this would have been a nightmare, I also believe that the method of indicating tolerance on a drawing were different

 

Packard were amazing engineers and did produce improvements to what was a an RR design it is conveniently forgotten on your side of the pond all the changes RR made that were incorporated into Packard's including the improvements in supercharging, and I can find no source that the intercooler was in anyway a US design (glycol was in common usage as a coolant pre-war

 

if Packard was so amazing why was it that the premier engine they made was a licensed copy of the merlin were was its replacement? RR had the Griffon Packard had?

 

as for the P80, exactly what engine did it have? oh yes the de Havilland H-1 B at first then Rolls-Royce Derwent,'s  as you US could not get your version working properly (J33) and again do you believe that it was done without help from Britain despite the UK having a lead in such design?

 

 

The comments about the carburetor, crank case, and supercharger intercooler are well known, OBNW.  

 

Did you note the Packard PT boat engine?

 

 

They did INVENT the Liberty. 

 

 

 

 

As for the Goblin knockoff?

 

That powered the P-59 Airacomet.

 

The J-33 was a GENERAL ELECTRIC CFJ engine that was a scaled up Whittle with air tunnel tweaks into the combustion pot to improve burner performance . The problems were in the scale up and were not British solved at all. Allison went back to General Electric for the fix. 

 

NACA solved the engine and GE passed it on.

 

The comments about the carburetor, crank case, and supercharger intercooler are well known, OBNW.  

 

Have you a source because all the sources I have do not mention it I have a copy og merlin power here now and not a word

 

Did you note the Packard PT boat engine?

 

yes I knew about it but it was too heavy and didn't produce enough power to be consider for aero use

 

That powered the P-59 Airacomet.

 

 

The J-33 was a GENERAL ELECTRIC CFJ engine that was a scaled up Whittle with air tunnel tweaks into the combustion pot to improve burner performance . The problems were in the scale up and were not British solved at all. Allison went back to General Electric for the fix. 

 

 

NACA solved the engine and GE passed it on.

 

 

Whittle's engine did not scale up properly. What do you not understand about this? RR had redesign the intake runs as the Americans did independently.  

 

The Derwent 1 (RR engine NOT the Whittle, my error) was a 8.9 kilo-newton thrust engine.

 

The J-33 was  17.9 kilonewtons.

 

The Derwent V (its thrust equivalent and LATER) was postwar. (Nene)

 

Considerable difference... in all three jet engines.

 

 

 

 

 

Packard - A History Of The Motorcar And The Company

 

By  Beverly Rae Kimes.

the j33 was the US developed enlargement of the Derwent, however if you want to compare engines they surely it would be fair to compare it against the Nene which produced 22kn and was only about 2 months after the J33

http://www.amazon.com/Merlin-Power-Growl-Behind-World/dp/1840374365/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372617760&sr=1-7&keywords=merlin+power

 

Merlin Power

 

by Victor Bingham