Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       6/29/2013 12:20:53 AM


 
 







 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/29/2013 12:33:45 AM

I would state that the Americans taught R-R more about how things worked than R-R taught any of us.
1. First, look closely at what Packard taught R-R about how to build them en masse'! 
2. Then look at all the refinements that Packard brought to the Merlin.
3. Know that no R-R built Merlin put in service during or after WW-II made as much power, or lasted as long as Packard built Merlin's that actually entered service during WW-II in the 555 P-51Hs! The best post war Merlin made at most 2,080 HP in the De Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet, while the Packard V-1650-9 made 2,218/2,220 HP and were in service both before and after any Hornet. 
 
except to show the Ford engineers what RR did not do right when they examined the drawings.

hard won info that had not war been imminent would have been very closely guarded  
Failure of the thought processes!
 
The1942  RR Merlin is NOT the 1938 Merlin.

the 1938 design was not the merlin actually in production in 38 but the later version that Packard eventually produced
War taught the British much, they did not know about carburetors and manifolds.
 disagree with that, and certainly ford didn't have the skills in supercharging that RR had
 
The Ford engineers solved those problems blind.

Ford bought Stromberg carbs so I would say that that's wrong too
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/29/2013 3:33:03 AM
Liar.




Ranger IV-12-770
 Your link id bazook!
 


 


Marat speaks:


 


Please read the engine details CAREFULLY, and see why  I insist you have no clue as to why people laugh at you when they read this reply to your latest silly posting.   


 




 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/29/2013 3:35:34 AM
I do not need the words of a man who cannot even admit the USAF calls him a fool, to muddy a discussion  I have with a man who knows aircraft rather well.
 
2. Then look at all the refinements that Packard brought to the Merlin.

3. Know that no R-R
built Merlin put in service during or after WW-II made as much power, or lasted as long as Packard built Merlin's that actually entered service during WW-II in the 555 P-51Hs! The best post war Merlin made at most 2,080 HP in the De Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet, while the Packard V-1650-9 made 2,218/2,220 HP and were in service both before and after any Hornet. 
 
except to show the Ford engineers what RR did not do right when they examined the drawings.

hard won info that had not war been imminent would have been very closely guarded  
Failure of the thought processes!

 
The1942  RR Merlin is NOT the 1938 Merlin.

the 1938 design was not the merlin actually in production in 38 but the later version that Packard eventually produced
War taught the British much, they did not know about carburetors and manifolds.
 disagree with that, and certainly ford didn't have the skills in supercharging that RR had

 
The Ford engineers solved those problems blind.

Ford bought Stromberg carbs so I would say that that's wrong too

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/29/2013 3:07:43 PM
Packard received the 1942 engine (an actual engine) and they tore it apart.
as they ran the first production Packard in August 1941 that was an amazing achievement,  but seriously Packard received a full of blueprints for the merlin XX - Packard then had to redraw them using the US standards for blueprints - they may (and probably did) strip an engine but this was not for drawing the blueprints
 They were appalled at the poor hand fit the mismatched tolerances and the aspiration pathways with the sharp elbows.
This complete rubbish, hand fitting referred to hand matching components a job done even today on high performance motors, the ONLY changes made to the engine were the introduction of US white metal bearing which were superior to any available in the uk and some finishing, what did help Packard was that they unlike RR had access to the latest US milling machines that enabled them to machine finer tolerances far easier, the idea that Packard knew more about engine design that RR is a joke  
 
 The Packard Merlin was tweaked for American production practice. Elbows were made more gentle in curve, and other things RR COPIED.  
rubbish pure rubbish, if anything it was Ford that introduced changes to RR production and most of that was by the provision of superior machinery
 
Ford received drawings. These did not show the manufacturing and tolerance faults,
yes they did, they would have been useless without them
 nor the basic carburetor fault with the (flapper design which the British fixed during the BoB as well as throttle stick issue [ice] at above 7000 meters.)
 the Throttle problem during the BoB was caused by fuel starvation in negative G and was a Carb problem NOT an engine one (and RR didn't make the carbs, they like Ford and Allison  bought them in)
 
So Ford knew a lot of things that neither GM, Allison, RR, or Wright did not going in, from their own sources. [Ford UK.]
 Ford had access to the bendix Stromberg a better carb, however their is nothing I can find on its V12 installation, I can however find a lot on its installation on the V8 GAA, and little of it good, feeding from both ends it resulted in the outer pistons running rich and the centre running lean, not a huge issue in a Tank but in a fighter? boom
 
And as the STROMBERG was an AMERICAN technology, (BENDIX Alfred Stromberg, around 1926, Chicago, inventor) don't you mean RR bought their carburetors from FORD, the UK outlet supplier?
Actually prior to 1941 the Bendix Stromberg was classed as state secret and was prohibited from sale to the UK so who they bought from is mute
they used SU's as these were the best available
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/29/2013 3:21:04 PM
I would state that the Americans taught R-R more about how things worked than R-R taught any of us. 
that your prerogative but not my take on it nor any reliable source  I have found
1. First, look closely at what Packard taught R-R about how to build them en masse'! ]
 Not a lot, it was Ford that changed the production of merlins and that was primary the result of introduction of superior milling machines that were unavailable pre war
2. Then look at all the refinements that Packard brought to the Merlin.
the introduction of materials unavailable to RR and the US of machines Unavilable  but look at what RR brought, especially Supercharges
3. Know that no R-R built Merlin put in service during or after WW-II made as much power, or lasted as long as Packard built Merlin's that actually entered service during WW-II in the 555 P-51Hs!
 Firstly No Hs saw active service, secondly as proved many times the Packard and the equivalent RR merlin had identical service lives
The best post war Merlin made at most 2,080 HP in the De Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet, while the Packard V-1650-9 made 2,218/2,220 HP and were in service both before and after any Hornet. 
  yes but the -9 needed water/methanol injection to make that figure but the RR figure was an engine that didn't use enhancers oranges and lemons old boy

hard won info that had not war been imminent would have been very closely guarded  
Failure of the thought processes!
 
yes I have notice you use this phrase a lot when you cannot counter an argument, a meaningless throwaway statement that makes it look like you know better when you haven't a clue
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/29/2013 3:30:44 PM
 yes I was wrong I meant hollow layshaft - you got me
Caught you head in the door again did you?! It's not a lay shaft, it is however an access tube sealed from both coolant and oil.
Yes I committed a mistake of typing something and not concentrating least I didn't make up completely bogus "facts" and try to pass them off as truths like someone here
  and where does this access tube go? I will give you a hint it exited though the prop centre so it must pass though the shaft driving it, surely! and as this is not the main shaft then it must be a lay shaft

obviously, most people would have realised that it was a mistake
Then why did you do/make it?
because I make mistakes, true not nearly as many or as great as yours but I do make them, why do you make them?
 
this last part spoils what for you was a accurate description, the critical siting of the prop was the thrust line not the  geometric center (especially as it was rarely the case)
While thrust line is important, it is not critical and can easily be adjusted. 
 
actually the thrust line is a critical aspect and changing it had major impact on the design 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/29/2013 4:47:40 PM
It isn't rubbish. RR was a mass production disaster and technologically backwards as far as Packard was concerned.
 
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.
 
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. 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,when that happened with the British impellers as the circuit vapor locked. After the impeller change, not a problem any more. Should I mention the steel filings and RUST in the crankcase problem? Packard solved those in the Merlin they got, and passed that on to RR. Not Ford. Henry, the anglo-phobe forbade any technology transfer.       
 
Changed copper lead to silver lead alloy in the bearing sleeves to solve the crankcase rust problem.
 
And most important of all (and this is American turbocharger technology applied to British superchargers ) the British INTER-COOLER circuit on the otherwise superb RR supercharger was wrong. Packard engineers with Curtiss assistance designed a erthyl-glycol circuit that boosted operating temperature cooling efficiency in the circuit so that boost which was previously (as Packard measured it)) measure limited to about 66 inches of mercury in the engine they acquired, they improved to about 80 inches of mercury in their revamped model just by the more efficient intercooler circuit. That gave the Merlin about 300 more horsepower above 6000 meters at a time when the British and the Americans desperately needed it against FW-190s.  
 
In effect, the Merlin BOMBER engine RR supplied, Packard turned into the FIGHTER engine they were supposed to get.
 
You see... RR cheated and Packard engineers caught them at it. 
 
Just because it was British does not mean it is all good, OBNW. The Americans have always had good aviation engineers and motor designers. 
 
Men like Schmued (P-51 in 100 days), Northrop [wing designs] , Heinenmann (any US dive bomber that worked), Johnson (took Allison crap and made a P-38 winner out of it, also the P-80 which was a better plane in 1945 than the Gloster Meteor ever was ), and Macauley and Jesse Vincent (the inventor of the Liberty engine who reworked the Merlin into the Packard V-1760) could teach the British a LOT about aircraft and motor design.  
 
The Americans named did a LOT to make that good engine of 1942, the great engine of 1944.
 
Not RR... not FORD... PACKARD.
 
Some information from the Detroit Free Press... and other sources... follows...
 
==================================>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/29/2013 5:00:32 PM
The Rolls-Royce V-1650 Merlin engine. Possibly the most important piston aircraft engine of the second world war for the allies. Ford and GM both passed on manufacturing the very complicated powerplant. Only Packard would tackle the project. Eventually making 2,000 changes to the design to simplify the process of producing the engine. Almost all of the changes were also adopted by Rolls-Royce for their production lines. Packard was so adept they were making US and UK spec engines on the same line. After the war the engine gained more fame powering unlimited hydroplanes. Even to this day a quarter century after their use was mostly disontinued piston engined hydroplanes are still far more popular than their faster turbine powered comtemporaries.
 
8888888888888888888888888888888888
 
 Those engines DID end up in the P51 Mustangs. Packard produced 55,000 of these engines for the war effort, in addition to thousands of PT boat engines of their own design. Packard took a typical British kluge that was hand-fitted and "a watchmaker's nightmare" and turned it into an absolute precision piece of production machinery, with fully interchangeable components. The Detroit-built Merlin engines gave superior service to the units built at Crewe. The officials from Rolls Royce came to Ford first, didn't like what they saw there for shop practices and equipment (and people) , they went to Packard and it was much more to their liking. Should have been, Packard was called "the American Rolls Royce. A few short years later "Engine Charlie" Wilson, secretary of Defense saw to it that all of Packard's (and other independent's) defense contracts were steered to his former employer General Motors, and within 3 years of that Packard was gone. The Eisenhower administration set Curtis-Wright up to acquire Studebaker-Packard and that was the end of what had been the Packard Motor Car Company.
 
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
 
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?

Anyway, this prototype was built not at Packard, but at the City Airport. He would stay at the airport all week, and his wife brought food to the security gate. She had no idea what he was up to. He'd work very long hours, and could not even call home. They worked very long hours, and I think got one day off a week. I suppose spending nights at the airport meant less down time commuting, and also minimized risk of casually giving away secrets at the corner pub. It might also have minimized risk of the workers picking up the flu or something. 
 
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/29/2013 5:00:57 PM
Hello Lt. Dan:

I read your commentary in today’s Detroit News and I like your enthusiasm about Packard. In fact, my mother worked at Packard during the war inspecting parts that went into the aircraft engines. Two of her best friends worked there too (still living) and I am proud to call them my “aunts.”

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt|FRONTPAGE|p

However, there is one, glaring factual error in your commentary. You said, “Macauley and his chief engineer, Jesse Vincent, had never made aircraft engines in their lives.” That statement could not be farther from the truth.

Jesse Vincent co-designed the “Liberty Engine” in 1917 used in aircraft during World War I. It was a modular design so that ANY supplier could produce parts for it and easily repaired in the field. The US needed so many engines that besides Packard they were also made Lincoln, Ford, Cadillac, Buick and Marmon. That V-12 engine, from concept to creation took a total of about 90 days. That would be difficult to do even today.

Packard also designed and built a diesel, radial engine called the DR-980. About 100 engines were produced and in 1931, Water Lees and Fred Brossy set a record for time aloft or 84 hours and 32 minutes without refueling. This record was not broken until 55 years later by Burt Rutan in his Voyager aircraft. You can see a photo of Water Lees – it is #16 of 50 in the photo section of the Detroit News commentary.

Michigan’s first commercial airport, Packard Field, opened at Gratiot Avenue and Frazho Road in 1919. A photo is attached. In 1927 Packard opened up the Proving Grounds in Utica (Shelby Twp), MI that included a landing strip and a test hanger. The hanger was moved from the infield of the test track and can still be seen today.

So, yes – Packard and Jesse Vincent (an avid pilot - photo of him in his Stinson Detroiter at the PPG is also attached) were HIGHLY experienced at aircraft engine design and manufacture prior to taking on the Merlin engine in World War II.
 
===================================
 
The article was in the Detroit Free Press prepared by historian Arthur Herman for the Packard commemorative.
 
The remarks are about THAT article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics