Merlins > Packard vs RR

[Hop]

My point is simply that Packard improved the Merlin at a time when it was technically beyond RR and introduced mass production and quality control concsistancy that was beyond RR as well.

So which are you claiming, that the Merlin wasn't reliable in 1941, or that is wasn't being mass produced?

The answer is that it was relaible and in mass production, so the argument that it was Packards input that made that possible falls down.

Getting all you want for free was pretty damned good deal when compared to the relative trickle GB imported before the war.

Certainly the extra fuel came in handy, especially with the enormous size of the strategic bomber offensive in 1944 and 1945, but pre war supplies were hardly a "trickle". As of mid 1941, imports from non-US sources of 100 octane were 500,000 tons a year. In November 1940, just after the BoB, stocks of 100 octane in the UK amounted to 500,000 tons, and the air ministry was justifying the large amount of fuel purchased by saying it would have commercial use after the war, and was a "capital asset that will not depreciate".

To put those figures in perspective, Fighter Command consumed about 25,000 tons of 100 octane during the BoB, and the 500,000 tons in Nov 1940 was, according to the report, enough for 80 weeks consumption.

These figures were dwarfed by the expansion later in the war, of course, but hardly represent a trickle, especially by the standards of the much smaller forces in the early war years.

The American auto industry more than excelled in war material production.

There's no doubt of that. But it's a huge stretch to go from that to claiming that Packard was required to productionise the Merlin, and to improve it's reliability, when both had been done long before Packard became involved. The myth of Rolls Royce craftsmen hand building, and hand fitting, Merlins until Packard came along is just that, a myth.

It's also true that the British motor industry carried out the same functions. For example, it was largely the car inductry that mass produced the Bristol Hercules, turning out close to 60,000 of them before the end of the war. Morris cars created the Castle Bromwich Spitfire plant, that produced more than 15,000 Spitfires during the war.

Don't forget, Britain, with just over half the population of Germany, produced more aircraft, and far more in terms of weight, and far more aero engines, whilst employing less workers in the aircraft industry than Germany.

Simply installing machine tools to give capacity for numbers does not guarantee consistancy or quality for your new-found quantity output ability. That was the problem RR had.

So you are claiming quality problems for Merlins before Packard became involved? Could you provide some evidence of that (apart from the early models in 1937 and 1938, when the design was still being developed)

Because the RAF seemed very happy with the quality and reliability of the Merlin once it was properly in service during the war.

They had absolutely no experience in large quantity production of complex engines and the attendant quality control consistancy needed to ensure that the 1st engine off the line was as reliable as the last in a given annual prodution run.

Which is probably why they also drew experience from the motor industry.

There was no way RR could go from a couple hundred engines a year to 200,000 as they did without immense changes to their philosophy of quality control.

I don't think they ever went to 200,000 units a year.

Simply building factories that could put out quantity didn't mean that modern quality control was automatically apparent. The Merlin's success was partly due to the influence of Packard's modern techniques of quality, mass production consistancy an innovation.

So you are saying that until 1941 the Merlin wasn't reliable? Again, this isn't borne out by the facts. The fact is, long before Packard became involved, the Merlin was being mass produced with excellent quality. Now certainly Packard mass produced a lot of Merlins, and their contribution made sure even more Merlins could be produced, but the Merlin was already in mass production, and already reliable, before Packard became involed. And again, it was the Packard engines that had more of a reputation for problems than the British built engines.

Ford and Chevrolet alone each produced over 1 million cars in 1941 before our entry into the war. No one on the planet produced vehicles or engines of those numbers with consistantly reliable reputations, no one.

Of course not, America was a much larger country, with far more people, and far more cars. But it's a huge, and unwarranted, jump to go from saying America produced more cars than anyone else to saying only America could mass produce with quality. The historical record is that in the late 30s Rolls Royce developed the Merlin for mass production and sorted out the quality.

If you want to claim Packard was responsible for this, you have to show that the Merlin was either unreliable before Packard became involved (ie in 1940 and 1941) or not being mass produced. Neither is true.

[Twitch]

Dude, whatever you say man. Most people who have delved into the subject of mass production and quality control know that American industry won the war. The Merlin was a great powerplant. Packard helped make it better. Think what you want. I don't care.

[Bullockracing]

Twithch, do you have a source for where I can find more info on how the Packard engines were made and tested, etc.? I have books that mention the production figures and outputs and the normal statistics, but not anything about how the motors were assembled/tested. Actually, does anyone have information on other engines as well, i.e. Jumo, Allison, BMW, etc?

[helmitsmit]

Originally Posted by Bullockracing

Twithch, do you have a source for where I can find more info on how the Packard engines were made and tested, etc.? I have books that mention the production figures and outputs and the normal statistics, but not anything about how the motors were assembled/tested. Actually, does anyone have information on other engines as well, i.e. Jumo, Allison, BMW, etc?

I think it is true that Packard helped RR a lot in the later years in terms of producing the merlins in huge quantities. However, it is more likely that, due to the more engines produced, the less reliable the merlin became. This because it is impossible to check every engine you produce you've just got to try and get the measurement consitant.

Is there any info about a certain rpm which made the Parcard merlins run rough? I heard this from a Spitfire mk XVI pilot.

[pasoleati]

This Twitch fellow is unfortunately a typical American, i.e. a brainwashed idiot. First, by comparing American war production to the pre-war production, it was no better than that of the UK or Germany. That is according to a recent study published by University Press of Kansas. Second, Packard intruduced NO improvements on the Merlin, not a single one. Third, Packard had to change the blueprints for their workforce was composed of typical Amis as described above whereas RR had SKILLED workforce who could think with their own brains.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by pasoleati

This Twitch fellow is unfortunately a typical American, i.e. a brainwashed idiot.

That was a stupid statement to make Paso you cannot just make sweeping remarks like that without it being you that looks the idiot I suggest you delete that very silly line and think before pressing the keys next time.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pasoleati

This Twitch fellow is unfortunately a typical American, i.e. a brainwashed idiot.

You just made yourself look like more of an idiot by making that comment.

Dont even start with the anti american bashing here. We do not tolerate it. There are plenty of websites out there where you can post your leftist anti american brainwashed bullshit.

For your insult to him, you get your first official warning. You only get one from me....

Originally Posted by pasoleati

Third, Packard had to change the blueprints for their workforce was composed of typical Amis as described above whereas RR had SKILLED workforce who could think with their own brains.

What are you implying? I am an American, are you saying that I can not think with my own brain?

[pasoleati]

You are not Twitch...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by helmitsmit

I think it is true that Packard helped RR a lot in the later years in terms of producing the merlins in huge quantities. However, it is more likely that, due to the more engines produced, the less reliable the merlin became. This because it is impossible to check every engine you produce you've just got to try and get the measurement consitant.

Is there any info about a certain rpm which made the Parcard merlins run rough? I heard this from a Spitfire mk XVI pilot.

I never noticed 'roughness' at high rpm bid did on warm up at low revs in the only 51 I ever flew.

I don't know where one could find the statistics to compare RR Merlin reliability in spring 1944 vs Packard - but all of the early 51 groups' records will show many aborts and suspected losses to engine failures. I have my own data base for the 355th FG and it alone lost 6 pilots POW/KIA solely and tracable to engine failure (not the dreaded coolant loss) in March and April 44.

I just quickly glanced at the 358FS ops reports and noted 2 losses plus 20 aborts to 'enine troubles' plus another 6 to oil pressure issues alone... in aprill 1944 alone - it was the same in March but fewer Mustang missions as the first one was March 8.

If someone here with depth of resources for a typical 'spitty' squadron, maybe they can look theirs up. However, in all fairness, mission durations between 51s and Spits would be a severe complication from a statistical POV and conclusions

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by pasoleati

You are not Twitch...

No he's not but he is a moderator here and one more ignorant statement or response and you're out of here pal - understand?!?!?

[trackend]

Its all gone a bit adrift on a couple of threads recently Joe why cant guys have a discussion without it degenerating into the Yanks this or the Brits that spoils it for the rest of us, all rather daft.

Anyway sorry I digress swinging it back to what this thread is about I am not up on the technicalities but I have seen on a couple programs including the history channel that stated the quality of raw materials available in the US enabled manufactures to produce a higher quality engine even though the spec was the same.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by trackend

Its all gone a bit adrift on a couple of threads recently Joe why cant guys have a discussion without it degenerating into the Yanks this or the Brits that spoils it for the rest of us, all rather daft.

Agree Track - especially when this crap comes from a new-bee.

Originally Posted by trackend

Anyway sorry I digress swinging it back to what this thread is about I am not up on the technicalities but I have seen on a couple programs including the history channel that stated the quality of raw materials available in the US enabled manufactures to produce a higher quality engine even though the spec was the same.

Probably true - I know out of necessity that the UK was recycling as much as possible (seen photos of pots and pans being collected for the war effort). Although the alloying of materials cane be controlled, the quality of such raw materials is always a bit degraded when recycled components are used. I know Reynolds Aluminum had a problem with this in the early-mid 80s.

[trackend]

Thats interesting Joe. I can well imagine the effect of re smelting, we have had a deterioration in believe it or not Rails of all things when machining it or when its ultrasonically tested we come across all sorts of impurities which degrades its life expectancy a hell of a lot.
I would have thought using re smelted alloys in the aero industry was something that needs very close monitoring.
lee

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pasoleati

You are not Twitch...

Does that matter? One more smart ass comment and your history...

[Hop]

There wasn't really a shortage of materials in the UK. To take aluminium as an example, Britain produced or imported just over 1,520,000 tons, and recycled just under 450,000 tons.

It's not hard to keep the good stuff for airframes when it comprises 75% of the aluminium, and use the low grade stuff for seats and handles and mess tins etc.

If someone here with depth of resources for a typical 'spitty' squadron, maybe they can look theirs up. However, in all fairness, mission durations between 51s and Spits would be a severe complication from a statistical POV and conclusions

I don't think you can draw accurate comparisons when aircraft are flying different missions, using different engine settings, and subject to different maintenance regimes, The best comparsion would be to look at the difference between Spitfire IX and XVI squadrons in 2nd TAF in 1945, as they were essentially the same aircraft, flying the same missions, for the same air force. The only difference between them was the Spitfire IX used British built engines, the XVI Packard Merlins.