PDA

View Full Version : Merlins



Whirlin_merlin
09-25-2006, 02:16 AM
Not wanting to start an "x" won teh war thread but it occurs to me that this engine played a huge role in the allied victory.
Hurricane
Spitfire
Lancaster
Mosquito
P-51

What other bits of kit were so widly used?

Off the top of my head the Browning 50 cal also comes to mind, any others?

KIMURA
09-25-2006, 02:21 AM
Klimov VK-105/7
Mikulin AM-38F
R-2800
R-1820/30

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-25-2006, 02:26 AM
That's what i'm after break me out of my brit-centric box.

JG52Karaya-X
09-25-2006, 02:28 AM
DB601/605 used in the Bf109, Ki61, MC.202, MC.205, Fiat G.55, Re2001 and Re2005

ploughman
09-25-2006, 02:29 AM
Sherman tank. Studebaker truck. Jeep. T-6.

Sergio_101
09-25-2006, 03:06 AM
Seems to me that the P&W R-1830 is the most produced
aircraft engine in history.

Consolidated/convair B-24/PB4Y/PB4Y-2
Consolidated/convair PBY
Douglas C-47
Grumman F4F
Curtiss P-36
Republic P-43
Bristol Beaufort II
Short Sunderland V
Boomerang
Vickers Wellington IV

And a laundry list of "one offs"

178,000+ built!
The P&W R-2,000 is exactly the same engine
with an increase in bore size.
That would pust the number to over 200,000!

Just the original factory installation in B-24 and C-47
aircraft would use up 100,000 of that number!

Sergio

Whirlin_merlin
09-25-2006, 04:36 AM
C 47,PBY, B 24 ,Wildcat etc yep that gets icon status for the R-1830

ImpStarDuece
09-25-2006, 04:42 AM
Aircraft that used the Merlin:

Hurricane
Spitfire
Defiant
Battle
Fulmar
Barracuda
Mosquito
Beaufighter
Wellington
Halifax
Lancaster
Whitley
York

P-40
P-51
P-82

Quite a lot of very ordinary aircraft in that list...

168,040 engines made in roughly 7 years of production.

KIMURA
09-25-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Aircraft that used the Merlin:
P-40
P-51
P-82


Of that 3-some, only the P-51 used the Merlin. The P-40 was well as the P-82 used the Allison V-1710 for the production a/c,

The-Pizza-Man
09-25-2006, 05:33 AM
1311 P-40Fs beg to differ

HellToupee
09-25-2006, 06:05 AM
the merlin was also adopted for tanks, the Meteor, pretty much the same but with supercharger removed, tanks with the engine were fastest of ww2.

Whirlin_merlin
09-25-2006, 06:30 AM
HellToupee didn't know that cheers.

Imp actually some damm awful planes on that list
(eg battle, fulmar) but also some fine and very significant aircraft.

I suppose what I was thinking about was iconic status which is often slightly/imensly removed from reality.

ImpStarDuece
09-25-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Aircraft that used the Merlin:
P-40
P-51
P-82


Of that 3-some, only the P-51 used the Merlin. The P-40 was well as the P-82 used the Allison V-1710 for the production a/c, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-40F used the Merlin, as did the P-82B.

WOLFMondo
09-25-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
the merlin was also adopted for tanks, the Meteor, pretty much the same but with supercharger removed, tanks with the engine were fastest of ww2.

They had a supercharger, just one geared towards a tank. The British M10 was one of those with a Meteor.

p1ngu666
09-25-2006, 07:31 AM
bristol quietly outproduced rolls royce in the war years i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

for people of occupied europe the merlin was probably the sound of freedom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

303 machine gun was used widely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-25-2006, 08:00 AM
Widely used kit I can think off:

That olive drab paint and the black matt paint on all RAF BC night bombers :P
0.50 Cal.
US Army leather boot (I bet this is the most used item off WW2. Millions were produced and sent to all allied armies)
Springfield No.4 Rifle
Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle (probably more prolific than the Ak47.)

luftluuver
09-25-2006, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Seems to me that the P&W R-1830 is the most produced
aircraft engine in history.

178,000+ built!
The P&W R-2,000 is exactly the same engine
with an increase in bore size.
That would pust the number to over 200,000! Graham White lists R-1830 production between 1941 and 1945 as 166,504 units and R-2000 as 10,782 units.

For the R-2800 it was 114,073 units.

Merlin/Packard-Merlin production was over 150,000 units.

Taylortony
09-25-2006, 03:23 PM
And lets not forget the one none of you probably know about............ the Merlin powered........ TORPEDO!

Sergio_101
09-25-2006, 03:51 PM
R-1830 units exceeded 178,000 as they were built before and after WWII.
R-2000s were built into the 1960s, as were R-2800s.

Ghram White says 178,000+ R-1830s also.
(Allied Aircraft Piston engines of WWII SAE books page 206, first paragraph)
R-1830s were also built over seas by Commenwelth of Austrailia
and
flygmotorbolaget of Sweeden.
(Allied Aircraft Piston engines of WWII SAE books page 209, second paragraph)

I made my case Luftluuver, More P&W R-1830s were built than any others.

As to number of aitcraft applications, the CW R-1820 Cyclone might
be the champ as it was produced longer, both before and after WWII.
100+ different aircraft types, from biplane bombers to anti submarine warfare planes
used R-1820s

R-1820s were built under licence by Japanese and Russians (and others).
If the Russian totals were known it may make the R-1820
the top dog.

Sergio

luftluuver
09-25-2006, 04:02 PM
What are you babbling about Sergio? I wasn't disputing your numbers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif just adding to the info.

Got a inferiority complex or just a reading comprehension problem?

VW-IceFire
09-25-2006, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Aircraft that used the Merlin:
P-40
P-51
P-82


Of that 3-some, only the P-51 used the Merlin. The P-40 was well as the P-82 used the Allison V-1710 for the production a/c, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might be interested to read the following link: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p40_9.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p40_9.html)

P-40F used a Merlin. Was a good performer too.

Sergio_101
09-25-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Aircraft that used the Merlin:
P-40
P-51
P-82


Of that 3-some, only the P-51 used the Merlin. The P-40 was well as the P-82 used the Allison V-1710 for the production a/c, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might be interested to read the following link: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p40_9.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p40_9.html)

P-40F used a Merlin. Was a good performer too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-82 with merlins, 24 built. 4 XP-82, 20 P-82B.

P-40F and P-40L had Packard Merlins.
total built both models, 2,011.

Actual USAAF performance tests showed them no more capable than the Allison powered P-40K.
Climb, top speed and payload remained the same.

In addition there were a couple of one offs using the Merlin.

Curtiss XP-60 (first version) Flew, but poorly.
Mcdonnel XP-67, second airplane, never flew.

the P-40s used a Packard V-1650-1 with no two
stage or two speed supercharger.
It was as bad at high altitudes as the Allison V-1710
in the same application.

Sergio

VW-IceFire
09-25-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Aircraft that used the Merlin:
P-40
P-51
P-82


Of that 3-some, only the P-51 used the Merlin. The P-40 was well as the P-82 used the Allison V-1710 for the production a/c, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might be interested to read the following link: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p40_9.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p40_9.html)

P-40F used a Merlin. Was a good performer too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-82 with merlins, 24 built. 4 XP-82, 20 P-82B.

P-40F and P-40L had Packard Merlins.
total built both models, 2,011.

Actual USAAF performance tests showed them no more capable than the Allison powered P-40K.
Climb, top speed and payload remained the same.

In addition there were a couple of one offs using the Merlin.

Curtiss XP-60 (first version) Flew, but poorly.
Mcdonnel XP-67, second airplane, never flew.

the P-40s used a Packard V-1650-1 with no two
stage or two speed supercharger.
It was as bad at high altitudes as the Allison V-1710
in the same application.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I had thought RAF testing showed improved top speed at 20,000 feet and above over similarly equipped Allison models. *shrug*

Sergio_101
09-25-2006, 04:57 PM
Funny and confusing!
Baughers text is written so as to
say the experimental P-40D with the RR Merlin
had a two speed single stage supercharger and
"The Merlin engine did much to overcome the limitations imposed by the Allison".
But he fails to note the production aircraft
had the single speed supercharger.

"British-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 28 engine with a single-stage two-speed supercharger."

I will do some more scrounging.
Now I am curious.

The USAF was so unimpressed with the Merlin
powered P-40s that some were converted back to Allison power.
Does not sound like that installation worked well at all.

Sergio

HellToupee
09-25-2006, 05:35 PM
they went back to alisons due to shortages of merlins

Viper2005_
09-25-2006, 06:12 PM
Why waste a good engine on the P-40 when it could be fitted to the P-51?

Sergio_101
09-25-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Why waste a good engine on the P-40 when it could be fitted to the P-51?

The reason for stopping with the fitting of Merlins
to non P-51s was availability.

The reason for converting back to Allisons
in aircraft already having Merlins was logistic
primarily I'm sure.
From what I have here it appears that the
Merlin in the P-40 was a failure.

Keep in mind folks, despite the fairy tales
the Allison was as good as a Merlin.
the bad reputation came fro the lack of a
two stage supercharger in non turbocharged applications
such as the P-40 and P-39.

In the P-38 the Allisons worked well.

Sergio

VW-IceFire
09-25-2006, 06:29 PM
Interesting Sergio. I figured the reason they went back to Allison was purely because of suppy and demand issues and the P-51 benefitted more and was needed more than the P-40 with a Merlin. Apparently it didn't even give a huge advantage...

I guess most of the reports on the performance go back to the prototype and not the production?

Definately true...Allison engines weren't bad by any means. Just that they were meant to be attached to a turbo and weren't in the P-39 and P-40. The P-63 develops well over 400mph of power without a turbo and thats using an Allison as well.

horseback
09-25-2006, 07:43 PM
Allison engines went through an evolution just like every other engine, including the Merlin. Merlin powered P-40F/Ls were more effective above 15,000 ft than the Allison powered P-40D/Es that preceded them.

Early in the war, Allison's V-1710 was in great demand, for P-39s, P-40s and P-38s, and by all accounts, they weren't ready for the demand right away. The need for 'handed' V-1710s is often cited as one of the early-war production bottlenecks for the Lightning. Packard's Merlins, built at plants converted from automobile production instead of at facilities originally dedicated to a/c engines, must have been a very effective spur to Allison's efforts to ramp up.

If anything, the Allisons that powered the K/M and later Warhawks were improved at least partially because of the competition from the Packard-built Merlins.

As for 'iconic' status, though, for the US forces the closest we would have is the R-2800, and it just doesn't have quite the cachet of the Merlin.

cheers

horseback

Sergio_101
09-26-2006, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting Sergio. I figured the reason they went back to Allison was purely because of suppy and demand issues and the P-51 benefitted more and was needed more than the P-40 with a Merlin. Apparently it didn't even give a huge advantage...

I guess most of the reports on the performance go back to the prototype and not the production?

Definately true...Allison engines weren't bad by any means. Just that they were meant to be attached to a turbo and weren't in the P-39 and P-40. The P-63 develops well over 400mph of power without a turbo and thats using an Allison as well.

P-63 was two staged supercharged.
Similar results as a turbocharger.

Sergio

madsarmy
09-26-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Not wanting to start an "x" won teh war thread but it occurs to me that this engine played a huge role in the allied victory.
Hurricane
Spitfire
Lancaster
Mosquito
P-51

What other bits of kit were so widly used?

Off the top of my head the Browning 50 cal also comes to mind, any others?

Corned Beef & Spam of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-26-2006, 06:00 AM
Spam good call.

Penicillin.

A great example of international co-operation.
Discovered by a Scot who didn't really relise it's significance. Developed by amoungst others an Aussie and a German. Sufficent production only possible due to US industrial might.
Better than the mustang story.

I did read that the desire to accumulate a hugh stock pile pre D_Day was out of fear that the allied advance accross europewould be halted by VD!

Sergio_101
09-26-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Spam good call.

Penicillin.

A great example of international co-operation.
Discovered by a Scot who didn't really relise it's significance. Developed by amoungst others an Aussie and a German. Sufficent production only possible due to US industrial might.
Better than the mustang story.

I did read that the desire to accumulate a hugh stock pile pre D_Day was out of fear that the allied advance accross europewould be halted by VD!

Food and drugs were obviously important.

Spam
Corned Beef
Malted Milk Balls
K Rations (still edable in the early 70's)
Penicillin
Morphine
Codine
Asprin

Can't fight a war when starving.
can't fight a war when sick.

Sergio

Aaron_GT
09-27-2006, 06:00 AM
K Rations (still edable in the early 70's)

I am living proof that they were still edible in the mid 1980s!

R_Target
09-27-2006, 08:26 AM
Don't forget DDT.

Sergio_101
09-27-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Don't forget DDT.

For all it's evil side effects DDT may have
saved many millions from disease!
Very important product during and after WWII.

sergio

Aaron_GT
09-28-2006, 03:26 AM
DDT is appropriate in the right context. It got overused in the 1960s, though, as the 1960s was still the period of optimistic 'better living through chemistry' when as everyone knows it is 'better living through nanotechnology' :-) Banning DDT outright isn't a sensible option either.