160,000 Merlins, four mass production manufacturing plants in UK, one of them was Ford Uk and of course 55,000 license built out of Packard in the US, truly was an International effort to produce this Rolls Royce designed masterpiece. I only just realised it also went into the P40 F variant as well. Well done for bringing one back to life.
@@merlin51h84 P40 F & L's were all Packard made V1650-1 The single stage supercharged version, of the first 3,000 built for the USAAF, Those engines had no purpose why they were used in the P40, made no difference in performance of the P40 except for a slight increase in service ceiling !!! Why they went back to the Allison in later P40's besides they had developed the V1650-3 2 stage supercharger version which were going into the P51's which were a better performing airframe !!
Peter Grieve is one of the best, a true gentleman who helped us find, and then rebuilt, the RR Griffon that lies at the heart of the fully-restored Miss Canada IV, the 1st boat to ever use a Griffon for power. The boat rests within the boathouse at Gravenhurst's Muskoka Discovery Centre, aka "Grace & Speed".
abthony Actually RR CONTRACTED Packard to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS, 37,137 delivered, Licensed to build ??? NO they BEGGED Packard to build the Merlin for them !! !
Considering the outward condition of the engine as found, the internals were in pretty good shape by the look of it. The hardware was pretty scary looking, with the corrosion and all, but if much of it was still in spec, and the engine only used for demonstration then it does the job. Amazing work saving that scrap and turning it back into a working engine!
While Rolls-Royce’s manufacturing techniques churned out very high quality engines, they simply didn’t jibe with Packard’s way of doing things (or Ford in Manchester for that matter). In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford: “One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey’s office, which I was then sharing, and said, ‘You know, we can’t make the Merlin to these drawings.’ I replied loftily, ‘I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can’t achieve the accuracy.’ ‘On the contrary’ he replied, ‘the tolerances are far too wide for us.’ We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass-production.’" The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse
@@atticboy11 No trouble, here is a quote from Minister of Aircraft Production Lord Beaverbrook on the Pack hard Merlin. The best production I ever saw was a job with which the Ministry had nothing to do, nothing at all. It was the production of the Rolls-Royce engines in the United States. It was done by the Pack hard Company. There was not a single representative of the Ministry there to supervise and only four representatives of the Rolls-Royce firm. The job was most 809 wonderfully done. In no time at all, production had been got under way. The output from that firm is remarkable. The Packhard Rolls-Royce engine is an example to the whole world. There was a very good American aeroplane called the Mustang. The engine of the Mustang was giving good service, but some genius had the idea of putting Rolls-Royce engines into the Mustangs, and the result is a very good aeroplane, one of the best in the world-some people will say the very best. That was the result of this project in America over which the Ministry had no supervision, although the contract was made here by the Minister. Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 page
@@nickdanger3802 There may not have been ministry staff at Packard, but there were plenty of Rolls-Royce staff, included three of their most senior engineers, Ellor, Barrington and Reid. Barrington died while at Packard, some say he worked himself to death, and was replaced by Pearson, who later became chairman of RR. Ellor was their supercharger expert until Hooker came along. The Packard vs Rolls-Royce debate does not interest me, it is all so full of... stuff! As far as I am aware, much of the Packard archives were lost when the company became insolvent. Also, I believe the RR archives are anything but complete, so it is highly unlikely that the detail of the tale will ever be fully known. Yet the debate rages with so much wrong information on both sides. Stanley Hooker did not help, his book was very positive, and perhaps bypasses some unfortunate events, and besides, a good story is very entertaining. According to Roger Neil, Packard's problem with the RR drawings they sourced from Ford USA (the inference is that these are original unmodified RR drawings) was not how wide the tolerances were, but that they were not specified at all! Obviously, these drawing were not production drawing for the RR plants, as those plants were mass production and required numerous inspection tools (many would have been of the go-nogo type) and these require defined tolerances. I will not even go near the thread issue or the ever creeping divergence of the two different builds.. Fortunately, much of the misinformation can be dispelled by inspection of actual production engines. The Ford drawings may have come from the experimental shop, where things were hand made to fit! It is pure supposition peculation on my part. For the record, some of my favourite cars are Packards, although mostly from about 1928 -32, the engines aren't that great (very reliable but not advanced for the day) but the rest of the car is excellent and the styling... wow
@@nickdanger3802 One of the references (available online) for the executives and Senior engineers is: Packard as an Aero Engine Builder - The Packard Merlin by Robert J.Neal. This is an article writte for Torque Meter and is an excerpt from his book: Master Motor Builders. This book is too expensive for me to justify and is not available in my local libraries. The author has written other books on both Packard and the Liberty aero engine. I have, over time, seen mention of support staff from Rolls-Royce such as junior engineers, draughtsmen, admin staff, etc. I cannot recall any mention of numbers, just the impression that there were quite a number. As to the references, too many books and articles over too many years to easily find specific references. As an ex professional engineer, i can defintitely see the need for the support staff and given RR's role at Packard, many of the support staff would need to be RR. AFAIK, under the contract between RR and Packard, all changes to the engine had to be approved by RR. Further, RR also was responsible for all testing
A stunning masterpiece engine brought back to life by hard devoted restoration work, supplemented by twirp dork background music? An excellent youtube video of these engines being newly built at the Packard factory is titled "They Bet Their Life On It". Absolutely excellent black and white of the entire process at the factory. The weld repairs reflect the porous and unclean aluminum. I wonder if they knew about "dry ice blasting"? It looks to me like the crank and rod set wasn't re-ground - oh yea - ground use service. Thanks for restoring this piece of historical engineering excellence.
Given that the Merlin first hit the drawing boards in 1933 and went into mass production in 1938, the pictures show what a feat of engineering it was for the time. This being a later supercharged version with single point fuel pump, instead of the gravity fed Bendix Carburettor. I don't think there is an aircraft or engineering buff who would not like a Merlin parked in the garage (probably the living room for me)👍.
lukewise...Bendix carbs were PRESSURE fed carbs, used on the Allison and other large aircraft engines, one of the first improvements Packard Made to stop the flooding of the old stock carb on the early merlins !!
@@alancordwell9759 Maytag a washing machine co that had casting facilities for aluminum sub contracted with Packard to produce parts, a war time effort !!
Just one question. Bearing in mind we’re looking at a very important historic engine and which would appeal perhaps to engineering minds, what in God’s name links engineering minds to background music for 6 year olds?
Peter Jones sorry mate... one of the few uncopyrighted pieces I could easily find. You could always use your mute button ;-). Thanks for looking though - much appreciated. There are some other videos on my channel of it running ..... with just Merlin “music”. Cheers
@@atticboy11 Cheers for that explanation. Sorry to sound so derogatory! I did use the mute button actually. These machines come with emotions of their own, I suppose, for anyone of a certain age... like me :)
I keep hearing this a lot. True, they turned the Mustang into a high altitude escort fighter using the two-stage Merlin. But the Allison Mustang was NOT "nothing'. It was the fastest fighter in 1942 and 1943 at low altitudes - faster than anything else including the Spitfire and the FW-190, and it did sterling service in Italy and in northern Europe - the British equipped several squadrons with it and used it for low level raids and reconnaissance over France and Germany. The first kill scored by a Mustang was a FW-190 during the Dieppe raid. The Americans even used it in its A-36 guise as a dive bomber. It also had the long range of the later versions.
At low level the 'Nothing' Mustang I was far, far more powerful than a Spitfire Mk V which only had a single speed single stage supercharger Merlin 45 with an exceptionally high Critical Altitude/Full Throttle Height crippling it at low levels. The 'Nothing' Mustang I was also better finished than a Spitfire with clean panel joins and fully retracting and enclosed undercarriage. They remained in service throughout the war.
@@iskandartaib Strange that over 30,000 Allison fighters were used throughout the war, P38's about 10,000, P39's about 9,000 P40's. 14,000 of them P63's also..the 3,000 P51 Mustangs.....so the Allison engine gave great service throughout the war, Remember too of the 20,000 $hitfires built only 7,000 had the 2 stage Merlin 60 engine in them so of the remaining 13,000, subtract 1700 griffon powered
Very little. The design was modified to suit their production methods. It's literally a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that is built (or erected) in a different factory.
the merlin engine is a beautiful piecce of machinery when cleaned and painted and polished ,,I have been around both merlin designs nd you can't really tell them apart ,,i'm more familiar with the rival Allison V-1710 it's not as complex and never had the 2 speed /2 stage supercharger this one has
@@ronbros yes it was ,,it made just as much power as the merlin ,, the reason the british hated the allison engine was because the aircraft fitted with allison engines like the P-39 and the P-38 lightning were NOT equipped with the GE turbosuperchargers so anything they were in was SLOW and gutless ,,even though they were allies we wouldn't give them the turbocharger technology which made the difference,,, ,it would have been interesting to see what the FORD engine design created before the war would have been able to do ,,the government opted to only use allison engines and radials but Ford had developed a very good V12 engine design ,,it ended up shortened to a V8 called the GAA which was a 1000 cubic inch dual overhead camshaft all aluminum engine ,,and unlike the allison or merlin this was a monoblock engine farther simplifying manufacture because it didn't have so many parts ,GAA engine made 400HP naturally aspirated ,,they ended up in sherman tanks ,,it's surprising on that end though because in 1940 the best engine ford had was the flathead V8 but they created the very first dual overhead camshaft aluminum V8 engine , in 1940
@@wildcoyote34 also an unknown fact, Chrysler made an inverted V12 before the war, and it used the now famous Chrysler OHV hemi design, not OHCs ! fact is during WW2 years, my dad worked in the GE Lynn MA. Turbine division, and brought home a metal wheel with a lot of fins on it, i thought it was some kind of WATER wheel! AH young and dumb! it would have been interesting to see some ALLISON engines WITH GE TURBOs on them in a P-51 planes , at the beginning, but as usual GB and USA have there agreements and BS walks and HS stalks!
@@ronbros that's interesting , i have always been fascinated with engines ,,sadly i don't know much about chrysler engines ,,the only one i am really familiar with was the A-57 multibank used in sherman tanks ,,an absolutely insane design from a mechanical standpoint , but was surprisingly reliable from everythingi have read
@@wildcoyote34 i remember that tank engine by Chrysler , as i can remember it was 24 cylinders , on 4 banks of 6 cyilnder flatheads, many internal parts were interchangable with truck for speedy turn around! before WW2 many countries were after a good aircraft engines ,so designs were all over the place , but i'm with you on the Allison 1710, it just never got a chance to show its stuff! except in the later P-38s, they kicked butt all over the Pacific! i often wonder why GB had so much influence with USA?
www.456fis.org/SPITFIRE_ENGINES.htm "The firing order of the cylinders was 1A, 6B, 4A, 3B, 2A, 5B, 6A, 1B, 3A, 4B, 5A, 2B (where A is on the right viewed from the pilots seat- B on the left- and the rows are numbered with the front row being 1)." This site has lost the links to the images contained in it, but the text is still there.
deanrobb The Cast Aluminum with RR in them polished up better than Packard stamped NO NAME covers. Many inside parts were cast by MAYTAG US washing machine co that sub contracted with PACKARD !!!!!
Packard Merlins were not used in any US boats. Packard V12's were used in US PT boats and a small number of British boats. As I understand it. Men Bet Their Lives on It -- Packard czcams.com/video/hRVWyZf5MQk/video.html
i read this some where england had limited building during the war so they sent 2 rolls engines thru canada to us with a note build a build a bunch of these---- no plans ??? us had take apart make molds of each part make thounsands of parts assymble as an engine and they did that
frankdavidson BULLSHIT STORY !!!! Sample engines went to Chrysler first they refused, engines planes went to FORD USA Henry refused, engines plans went to PACKARD and they accepted !!! The truth less the BS and Hype and Lies !!
The Packard & Rolls Royce Merlins are Identical, right? Interchangeable parts & stuff? I do know that the Brits did give us the plans so that we could make them here. Regardless, the Merlins were amazing engines! The RR Gryphons were some incredible engines as well!
I don't know if you saw the comment a few places above yours: While Rolls-Royce’s manufacturing techniques churned out very high quality engines, they simply didn’t jibe with Packard’s way of doing things (or Ford in Manchester for that matter). In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford: “One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey’s office, which I was then sharing, and said, ‘You know, we can’t make the Merlin to these drawings.’ I replied loftily, ‘I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can’t achieve the accuracy.’ ‘On the contrary’ he replied, ‘the tolerances are far too wide for us.’ We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass-production.’" The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse
You have done a wonderful job. Though why be pedantic about it not being a RR on the title, yet both cam/valve covers are RR. ...And without RR there'd be no Packard Merlin. Strange logic.
Slaktrax And to complete your assinine statement, without PACKARD 1/3 of all Merlins would NOT exist and without AMERICA saving the Brits @$$'s no UK today !!!
IF that merlin is truely a Packard manufactured engine it has the wrong valve covers on it as Packard engines had plain stamped steel valve covers, NO RR emblem on them !!!
I noticed the Packard Merlin redrive doesn't have any dampening system to absorb torsional vibration like most small redrives today used on General Aviation engines.
crabfat Probably because the RR used a Cast Aluminum with ROLLS ROYCE cast inn them and the PACKARDS used a plain steel stamped valve cover no name, Aluminum polishes up better that steel !!! It is a PACKARD built engine because of the Maytag cast name in Aluminum parts, there were a sub contractor to Packard !!!
Greetings. Please, when you go to disassemble and assemble this incredible engine again, call me and I will help you. I'm crazy about these engines. I live in Brazil. I'm kidding, don't take me seriously.
Notice the "Maytag" casting mark in one of the shots? I thought that was interesting, but at the time farming out parts casting and machining was needed. I'm pretty sure where the engine came from during and after the war mattered little to the people who were using them.
machining design had to be redone to USA SAE specifications , the old GB Witworth stuff was slow repeatability and not accurate enough for PACKARD engineers, SAE increased production speeds and far more precision for fitting assembly from one engine to another interchangeable! a little known fact TODAY is for a few years the MERLIN racing planes used ALLISON connecting rods becuase they are a stronger part! altho at present they finally use custom forged and machined con rods.
@tecdessus NO it was not!, that war made our enemies some of the richest countries in the world, the whole thing was a joke! plus it thins out some the populations! now we got a Pandemic to thin things out, its simpler and less polutions!
@@ronbros Absolute nonsense ...and another myth about this is better than that. Read ''The Merlin In Perspective'' from the RR heritage library and get educated before opening mouth and spewing complete b/s.
There's this myth/urban legend going around that Packard switched all the fasteners to American ones. It's not true! First heard this on Usenet over 20 years ago and I've seen it repeated over and over again. They DID make changes (I think to the carburetor, mainly) but you'll need British wrenches to work on one, I think.
Far as I know the Americans used the same as us. They're still on the imperial system even now. BUT, I did once read on Wikipedia, someone had written that Packard Merlins were built in Metric !!! Obviously a joke LOL!!!
@@MURDOCK1500 American inch-sized fasteners are different, though once you look into it the actual thread sizes are actually pretty close. The British use the Whitworth system, the Americans use the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) system. All the tools you'd need - spanners, etc. will be different. Whitworth fasteners are hard to find in the US, and I don't think the British use them any more either, but if you have an old wrecked Land Rover or similar in the backyard you'd probably have a lifetime supply of the nuts, at least. That article I posted earlier in the thread mentioned that Packard found it impossible to buy the fasteners in the US and had to resort to making them in-house. If they DID switch fasteners, can you imagine the problems you'd have if you were an Aircraftman in a squadron that operated both Mark IX and Mark XVI Spitfires? Or one that flew Lancasters with both Rolls Royce (or Ford Britain) made Merlins and Packard Merlins? You'd need two sets of tools, and then you'd have problems with tools getting switched or going missing. There was a joke about this in the second Cars movie, incidentally. Also incidentally, I was VERY surprised to find that that 1984 Cutlass Custom wagon I bought 20 years ago used METRIC screws (I had to buy new wrenches). Apparently GM had decided to go metric some years before 1984 - they did it during one of their annual plant retooling shutdowns. Probably took the opportunity to revamp the entire car line, too.
@@MURDOCK1500 Not me, the Americans.. 😁 I suppose it does. It's happened or is happening in dribs and drabs - I was surprised to find the US Army has been metric since the first world war, for instance - their maps are in kilometers, which means their artillery operates in metric, and they march in kilometers, though I'm sure their tire rims are still in inches.. 😁 Still, milk will still be sold in gallons for many years to come...
@UCvmtRpxBzn61WydmoYsGfMg As iskandartaib said, the English used their own fastener system. Their fine threads were BSF (British Standard Fine) and their course threads were BSW (British Standard Whitworth). They use different head sizes on the bolts than S.A.E. fasteners, and the sizes on the spanners (wrenches) relate to the bolt shank size in diameter, not the distance 'across the flats', which is what 'A/F' really stands for. One other notable oddity with the British system is that the thread angles are formed at 55 degrees, whereas most else, SAE and Metric included, use a 60 degree angle.
Did you no the difference between Rolls-Royce merlin and Packard merlin one thing I no is Rolls-Royce used white metal for brgs and Packard merlin used silver far better motor
@wilburfinnigan2142 yes exactly. Packard built under license the Rolls-Royce earo engine, called the Merlin. It's still a Rolls-Royce engine, just built in a different factory.
@wilburfinnigan2142 let me help you with your wording there. It's a Packard built via licence from Rolls-Royce, Merlin. The R-R Merlin 68 & 69 were only used in the Mustang.
bryankirk BULLSHIT !!!! TheBrits came BEGGING Packard to build the merlin as a shadow factory offshore away from the war !!! DUUUUHHH!!!!! Packard was the third co asked, Chrysler and Ford USA REFUSED to build them !! !
"NOT" Rolls Royce is a lie. During the war, lots of things were contracted to be built and assembled by other facilities. Chrysler, Westinghouse, and many others were contracted to build 1911 .45 cal pistols for Colt and they were still COLT pistols.
MyAdded BULL$HIT it is as Packard made many improvements and changes, and that is why the V1650-3 & 7 are only used in the Mustang !!! The supercharger on them was Vincents of Packard with the Bendix Pressure carb and his intercooler !!!
I'll refer you to my previous post...... The engine was built for an interceptor fighting aeroplane, not a long-range escort engine, of course, there must have been some modification, but a Rolls is a Rolls, and just because a yank wiped it with a rag doesn't make it American.....The Merlin absolutely made the Mustang, and previously with its original Allison the RAF pilots used to say it was good thirty feet and no higher.....@@wilburfinnigan2142
Nope! RR used their own in house designed V8, made on an alloy block with wet iron sleeve liners. The Packard V8 was all iron. Rolls also used two SU CV carbs for the intake, although I saw a four barrel intake for one, so some market did get different carbs. But little similarity of engines. The GM TH400 was supposedly a cross design though, as RR needed an automatic far better than the old Borg Warner design, and wanted near perfect shifting. GM was happy to supply. They also used GM power steering pumps and AC compressors.
Not impressed with the Cleanliness of the Pistons and the surface corrosion on the Head Bolt studs during assembly, would not be happy if I paid for that rebuild, not good at all
"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement." Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum on line
WRONG stevehicks First thing Packard changed was they cast the head seperate from the upper block, because with the valve seats so deep in the cylinder RR Had a special tool for machining valve seats NOT available in USA buy splitting the head from the upper block Packards tooling could machine the valve seats !!
Could you have chosen a more IRRITATING set of "music" for this? Really, I'm not totally ready to just jump off a cliff yet... Next time, really work on making EVERYONE run in terror much faster than 3 seconds like you have here.
160,000 Merlins, four mass production manufacturing plants in UK, one of them was Ford Uk and of course 55,000 license built out of Packard in the US, truly was an International effort to produce this Rolls Royce designed masterpiece. I only just realised it also went into the P40 F variant as well. Well done for bringing one back to life.
We have a fully restored Merlin engined P40F here in Australia.
@@merlin51h84 P40 F & L's were all Packard made V1650-1 The single stage supercharged version, of the first 3,000 built for the USAAF, Those engines had no purpose why they were used in the P40, made no difference in performance of the P40 except for a slight increase in service ceiling !!! Why they went back to the Allison in later P40's besides they had developed the V1650-3 2 stage supercharger version which were going into the P51's which were a better performing airframe !!
Peter Grieve is one of the best, a true gentleman who helped us find, and then rebuilt, the RR Griffon that lies at the heart of the fully-restored Miss Canada IV, the 1st boat to ever use a Griffon for power. The boat rests within the boathouse at Gravenhurst's Muskoka Discovery Centre, aka "Grace & Speed".
A wonderful job done with passion and great knowledge! Seeing how it was found and transformed in a piece of art, I find it astonishing! 👍👍
Nicely manufactured by Packard under licence from Rolls Royce. Lovely to see one stripped cleaned and back together again.
Vastly improved and many parts redesigned by Packard...
abthony Actually RR CONTRACTED Packard to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS, 37,137 delivered, Licensed to build ??? NO they BEGGED Packard to build the Merlin for them !! !
What a piece of art and engineering! Love them rolls v-12s!
Considering the outward condition of the engine as found, the internals were in pretty good shape by the look of it. The hardware was pretty scary looking, with the corrosion and all, but if much of it was still in spec, and the engine only used for demonstration then it does the job. Amazing work saving that scrap and turning it back into a working engine!
what a work of art , the man hours into that must be huge , but what a result.
While Rolls-Royce’s manufacturing techniques churned out very high quality engines, they simply didn’t jibe with Packard’s way of doing things (or Ford in Manchester for that matter). In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford: “One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey’s office, which I was then sharing, and said, ‘You know, we can’t make the Merlin to these drawings.’ I replied loftily, ‘I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can’t achieve the accuracy.’ ‘On the contrary’ he replied, ‘the tolerances are far too wide for us.’ We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass-production.’"
The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse
Thanks for your comprehensive comments..... I’d heard about this, but you go into good detail :-). Cheers.
@@atticboy11 No trouble, here is a quote from Minister of Aircraft Production Lord Beaverbrook on the Pack hard Merlin.
The best production I ever saw was a job with which the Ministry had nothing to do, nothing at all. It was the production of the Rolls-Royce engines in the United States. It was done by the Pack hard Company. There was not a single representative of the Ministry there to supervise and only four representatives of the Rolls-Royce firm. The job was most 809
wonderfully done. In no time at all, production had been got under way. The output from that firm is remarkable. The Packhard Rolls-Royce engine is an example to the whole world. There was a very good American aeroplane called the Mustang. The engine of the Mustang was giving good service, but some genius had the idea of putting Rolls-Royce engines into the Mustangs, and the result is a very good aeroplane, one of the best in the world-some people will say the very best. That was the result of this project in America over which the Ministry had no supervision, although the contract was made here by the Minister.
Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 page
@@nickdanger3802 There may not have been ministry staff at Packard, but there were plenty of Rolls-Royce staff, included three of their most senior engineers, Ellor, Barrington and Reid. Barrington died while at Packard, some say he worked himself to death, and was replaced by Pearson, who later became chairman of RR. Ellor was their supercharger expert until Hooker came along.
The Packard vs Rolls-Royce debate does not interest me, it is all so full of... stuff! As far as I am aware, much of the Packard archives were lost when the company became insolvent. Also, I believe the RR archives are anything but complete, so it is highly unlikely that the detail of the tale will ever be fully known. Yet the debate rages with so much wrong information on both sides.
Stanley Hooker did not help, his book was very positive, and perhaps bypasses some unfortunate events, and besides, a good story is very entertaining. According to Roger Neil, Packard's problem with the RR drawings they sourced from Ford USA (the inference is that these are original unmodified RR drawings) was not how wide the tolerances were, but that they were not specified at all! Obviously, these drawing were not production drawing for the RR plants, as those plants were mass production and required numerous inspection tools (many would have been of the go-nogo type) and these require defined tolerances. I will not even go near the thread issue or the ever creeping divergence of the two different builds.. Fortunately, much of the misinformation can be dispelled by inspection of actual production engines. The Ford drawings may have come from the experimental shop, where things were hand made to fit! It is pure supposition peculation on my part.
For the record, some of my favourite cars are Packards, although mostly from about 1928 -32, the engines aren't that great (very reliable but not advanced for the day) but the rest of the car is excellent and the styling... wow
@@robertnicholson7733 Source for number of RR reps?
@@nickdanger3802 One of the references (available online) for the executives and Senior engineers is: Packard as an Aero Engine Builder - The Packard Merlin by Robert J.Neal. This is an article writte for Torque Meter and is an excerpt from his book: Master Motor Builders. This book is too expensive for me to justify and is not available in my local libraries. The author has written other books on both Packard and the Liberty aero engine.
I have, over time, seen mention of support staff from Rolls-Royce such as junior engineers, draughtsmen, admin staff, etc. I cannot recall any mention of numbers, just the impression that there were quite a number. As to the references, too many books and articles over too many years to easily find specific references. As an ex professional engineer, i can defintitely see the need for the support staff and given RR's role at Packard, many of the support staff would need to be RR. AFAIK, under the contract between RR and Packard, all changes to the engine had to be approved by RR. Further, RR also was responsible for all testing
Beautiful engine and great work
I need one of these for the fall season.
Incredible. Thanks for the video.
Very, very, very nice. A real prize, good job.
A stunning masterpiece engine brought back to life by hard devoted restoration work, supplemented by twirp dork background music? An excellent youtube video of these engines being newly built at the Packard factory is titled "They Bet Their Life On It". Absolutely excellent black and white of the entire process at the factory. The weld repairs reflect the porous and unclean aluminum. I wonder if they knew about "dry ice blasting"? It looks to me like the crank and rod set wasn't re-ground - oh yea - ground use service. Thanks for restoring this piece of historical engineering excellence.
Given that the Merlin first hit the drawing boards in 1933 and went into mass production in 1938, the pictures show what a feat of engineering it was for the time. This being a later supercharged version with single point fuel pump, instead of the gravity fed Bendix Carburettor. I don't think there is an aircraft or engineering buff who would not like a Merlin parked in the garage (probably the living room for me)👍.
lukewise...Bendix carbs were PRESSURE fed carbs, used on the Allison and other large aircraft engines, one of the first improvements Packard Made to stop the flooding of the old stock carb on the early merlins !!
I’d hate to think how many hours went into it. Sterling job guys.👍
Imagine just finding that
Good to see it's been rescued.
That's awesome
Amazing!
Cool find.
Packard made about 60,000 of them, great war winning engine! U.S plane, and U.K engine!🤗
Looks like this engine was one of them, from the Maytag logo on the casting!
@@alancordwell9759 Maytag a washing machine co that had casting facilities for aluminum sub contracted with Packard to produce parts, a war time effort !!
jason A US Plane and a US Made engine !!!! Nothing UK about it !!!!!
I like there is a block of flats or some housing right next to where you test run it .
So etwas Schönes bekommen die Bewohner sonst nicht zu hören !
How long did it take to overhaul this Merlin?🤔🤔🤔
oh so touchy
Parabéns. Aqui do Brasil.
What does it cost to restore a motor like this? I know it depends on what you find but what's a ball park figure?
Hello Pick-n-Pull? Yeah I noticed you had a Merlin V12 in the back there- is it still available?
Left wear Mark's on main bearing must be in limits lovely
Yes, reusing original parts was interesting, must've been well within spec. Maybe they'll post a text description of just what was done.
Just one question. Bearing in mind we’re looking at a very important historic engine and which would appeal perhaps to engineering minds, what in God’s name links engineering minds to background music for 6 year olds?
Peter Jones sorry mate... one of the few uncopyrighted pieces I could easily find. You could always use your mute button ;-). Thanks for looking though - much appreciated. There are some other videos on my channel of it running ..... with just Merlin “music”. Cheers
@@atticboy11 Cheers for that explanation. Sorry to sound so derogatory! I did use the mute button actually. These machines come with emotions of their own, I suppose, for anyone of a certain age... like me :)
Peter Jones you’re welcome mate and thanks for your reply :-). Thanks for watching the video in the first place. All the best. Paul
It was light and busy, easy to listen to for me, nearly 80 now, not offended.
Wish I had a carb that big on the 454 in my Chevy Dually
Your truck will be able to run upside down with that carb
@@larrylaurence8041 😆 until the bearings burn up because of lack of oil
Whats the P-51 without a Merlin?
Nothing.
Thanks for saving a piece of history.
I keep hearing this a lot. True, they turned the Mustang into a high altitude escort fighter using the two-stage Merlin. But the Allison Mustang was NOT "nothing'. It was the fastest fighter in 1942 and 1943 at low altitudes - faster than anything else including the Spitfire and the FW-190, and it did sterling service in Italy and in northern Europe - the British equipped several squadrons with it and used it for low level raids and reconnaissance over France and Germany. The first kill scored by a Mustang was a FW-190 during the Dieppe raid. The Americans even used it in its A-36 guise as a dive bomber. It also had the long range of the later versions.
You need to read some history about how ''useless'' the Allison powered versions were.
And, "What was the P-38 forked tail devils without G.M. Allisons?
At low level the 'Nothing' Mustang I was far, far more powerful than a Spitfire Mk V which only had a single speed single stage supercharger Merlin 45 with an exceptionally high Critical Altitude/Full Throttle Height crippling it at low levels. The 'Nothing' Mustang I was also better finished than a Spitfire with clean panel joins and fully retracting and enclosed undercarriage. They remained in service throughout the war.
@@iskandartaib Strange that over 30,000 Allison fighters were used throughout the war, P38's about 10,000, P39's about 9,000 P40's. 14,000 of them P63's also..the 3,000 P51 Mustangs.....so the Allison engine gave great service throughout the war, Remember too of the 20,000 $hitfires built only 7,000 had the 2 stage Merlin 60 engine in them so of the remaining 13,000, subtract 1700 griffon powered
You installed the OLD pistons without cleaning them before ??? :-(
How much difference was there between the Merlins built by R.R. and those built by Packard?
From what I've read the parts count was almost halved on the Packard Merlin (vs RR Mer) to make it more mass producible and more reliable
@@xenuno Interesting.
Very little. The design was modified to suit their production methods. It's literally a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that is built (or erected) in a different factory.
so how many did you have a choice of?? looked like quite a pile
me109g4 , the scrap yard photos were taken some years ago and not by me, otherwise I would have a garage full lol.
8!₹
the merlin engine is a beautiful piecce of machinery when cleaned and painted and polished ,,I have been around both merlin designs nd you can't really tell them apart ,,i'm more familiar with the rival Allison V-1710 it's not as complex and never had the 2 speed /2 stage supercharger this one has
if you have any knowledge of OHC valve train technology , and chamber shapes, the ALLISON is lighter years ahead of the Merlin!
@@ronbros yes it was ,,it made just as much power as the merlin ,, the reason the british hated the allison engine was because the aircraft fitted with allison engines like the P-39 and the P-38 lightning were NOT equipped with the GE turbosuperchargers so anything they were in was SLOW and gutless ,,even though they were allies we wouldn't give them the turbocharger technology which made the difference,,, ,it would have been interesting to see what the FORD engine design created before the war would have been able to do ,,the government opted to only use allison engines and radials but Ford had developed a very good V12 engine design ,,it ended up shortened to a V8 called the GAA which was a 1000 cubic inch dual overhead camshaft all aluminum engine ,,and unlike the allison or merlin this was a monoblock engine farther simplifying manufacture because it didn't have so many parts ,GAA engine made 400HP naturally aspirated ,,they ended up in sherman tanks
,,it's surprising on that end though because in 1940 the best engine ford had was the flathead V8
but they created the very first dual overhead camshaft aluminum V8 engine , in 1940
@@wildcoyote34 also an unknown fact, Chrysler made an inverted V12 before the war, and it used the now famous Chrysler OHV hemi design, not OHCs !
fact is during WW2 years, my dad worked in the GE Lynn MA. Turbine division, and brought home a metal wheel with a lot of fins on it, i thought it was some kind of WATER wheel! AH young and dumb!
it would have been interesting to see some ALLISON engines WITH GE TURBOs on them in a P-51 planes , at the beginning, but as usual GB and USA have there agreements and BS walks and HS stalks!
@@ronbros that's interesting , i have always been fascinated with engines ,,sadly i don't know much about chrysler engines ,,the only one i am really familiar with was the A-57 multibank used in sherman tanks ,,an absolutely insane design from a mechanical standpoint , but was surprisingly reliable from everythingi have read
@@wildcoyote34 i remember that tank engine by Chrysler , as i can remember it was 24 cylinders , on 4 banks of 6 cyilnder flatheads, many internal parts were interchangable with truck for speedy turn around!
before WW2 many countries were after a good aircraft engines ,so designs were all over the place , but i'm with you on the Allison 1710, it just never got a chance to show its stuff! except in the later P-38s, they kicked butt all over the Pacific! i often wonder why GB had so much influence with USA?
What is the firing order of. The V12 Merlin engine
www.456fis.org/SPITFIRE_ENGINES.htm
"The firing order of the cylinders was 1A, 6B, 4A, 3B, 2A, 5B, 6A, 1B, 3A, 4B, 5A, 2B (where A is on the right viewed from the pilots seat- B on the left- and the rows are numbered with the front row being 1)."
This site has lost the links to the images contained in it, but the text is still there.
Mmmmm Packard merlin ? Not rolls Royce , the first thing I’m drawn to is the words rolls Royce clearly embossed on the shinny rocker covers
deanrobb The Cast Aluminum with RR in them polished up better than Packard stamped NO NAME covers. Many inside parts were cast by MAYTAG US washing machine co that sub contracted with PACKARD !!!!!
produced under license and assembled in USA and UK ! =
ronnieboucher Reengineered, modified and Built in AMERICA by AMERICANS, helping to save the Brits @$$'s in WW II !!!
Quite a few of those Packard made Merlin's ended up in boats at least in the us
Packard Merlins were not used in any US boats. Packard V12's were used in US PT boats and a small number of British boats. As I understand it.
Men Bet Their Lives on It -- Packard
czcams.com/video/hRVWyZf5MQk/video.html
kyleallenburges What Boats ???? Not PT boats if that is what you think those ALL were PACKARDS own M2500's 50% larger than a merlin !! !
Baddass beyond baddass....put that bad boy in an unlimited hydroplane and let it rip!!!!
i read this some where england had limited building during the war so they sent 2 rolls engines thru canada to us with a note build a build a bunch of these---- no plans ??? us had take apart make molds of each part make thounsands of parts assymble as an engine and they did that
frankdavidson BULLSHIT STORY !!!! Sample engines went to Chrysler first they refused, engines planes went to FORD USA Henry refused, engines plans went to PACKARD and they accepted !!! The truth less the BS and Hype and Lies !!
The Packard & Rolls Royce Merlins are Identical, right? Interchangeable parts & stuff?
I do know that the Brits did give us the plans so that we could make them here.
Regardless, the Merlins were amazing engines! The RR Gryphons were some incredible engines as well!
I don't know if you saw the comment a few places above yours:
While Rolls-Royce’s manufacturing techniques churned out very high quality engines, they simply didn’t jibe with Packard’s way of doing things (or Ford in Manchester for that matter). In his book “Not Much of An Engineer”, Rolls-Royce engineer Sir Stanley Hooker recalls his introduction to the matter with Ford: “One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey’s office, which I was then sharing, and said, ‘You know, we can’t make the Merlin to these drawings.’ I replied loftily, ‘I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can’t achieve the accuracy.’ ‘On the contrary’ he replied, ‘the tolerances are far too wide for us.’ We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass-production.’"
The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse
You have done a wonderful job. Though why be pedantic about it not being a RR on the title, yet both cam/valve covers are RR. ...And without RR there'd be no Packard Merlin. Strange logic.
Slaktrax And to complete your assinine statement, without PACKARD 1/3 of all Merlins would NOT exist and without AMERICA saving the Brits @$$'s no UK today !!!
IF that merlin is truely a Packard manufactured engine it has the wrong valve covers on it as Packard engines had plain stamped steel valve covers, NO RR emblem on them !!!
If it's Packard and not Rolls-Royce Merlin why have you got Rolls-Royce rocker covers on it
It’s just what it came with. It’s how it was scrapped out of RAF service
Well done my friend!! What I want to know is WHO is the idiot who throws that in the scrap pile?
I noticed the Packard Merlin redrive doesn't have any dampening system to absorb torsional vibration like most small redrives today used on General Aviation engines.
Q....If that is a Packard, why has it gor R.R, rocker covers.?
crabfat Probably because the RR used a Cast Aluminum with ROLLS ROYCE cast inn them and the PACKARDS used a plain steel stamped valve cover no name, Aluminum polishes up better that steel !!! It is a PACKARD built engine because of the Maytag cast name in Aluminum parts, there were a sub contractor to Packard !!!
Greetings. Please, when you go to disassemble and assemble this incredible engine again, call me and I will help you. I'm crazy about these engines. I live in Brazil. I'm kidding, don't take me seriously.
That is a RR, not a Packard. Avro 694 Lincoln II Powered by four Rolls-Royce Merlin 66, 68A and 300
Notice the "Maytag" casting mark in one of the shots? I thought that was interesting, but at the time farming out parts casting and machining was needed. I'm pretty sure where the engine came from during and after the war mattered little to the people who were using them.
UAU
why did most UK pilots prefer Packard made over UK made .?
@tecdessus they were smoother runnin, and little better on fuel!
@@ronbros Were they?
machining design had to be redone to USA SAE specifications , the old GB Witworth stuff was slow repeatability and not accurate enough for PACKARD engineers, SAE increased production speeds and far more precision for fitting assembly from one engine to another interchangeable!
a little known fact TODAY is for a few years the MERLIN racing planes used ALLISON connecting rods becuase they are a stronger part!
altho at present they finally use custom forged and machined con rods.
@tecdessus NO it was not!, that war made our enemies some of the richest countries in the world, the whole thing was a joke!
plus it thins out some the populations!
now we got a Pandemic to thin things out, its simpler and less polutions!
@@ronbros Absolute nonsense ...and another myth about this is better than that.
Read ''The Merlin In Perspective'' from the RR heritage library and get educated before opening mouth and spewing complete b/s.
108108G
There's this myth/urban legend going around that Packard switched all the fasteners to American ones. It's not true! First heard this on Usenet over 20 years ago and I've seen it repeated over and over again. They DID make changes (I think to the carburetor, mainly) but you'll need British wrenches to work on one, I think.
Far as I know the Americans used the same as us. They're still on the imperial system even now. BUT, I did once read on Wikipedia, someone had written that Packard Merlins were built in Metric !!! Obviously a joke LOL!!!
@@MURDOCK1500 American inch-sized fasteners are different, though once you look into it the actual thread sizes are actually pretty close. The British use the Whitworth system, the Americans use the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) system. All the tools you'd need - spanners, etc. will be different. Whitworth fasteners are hard to find in the US, and I don't think the British use them any more either, but if you have an old wrecked Land Rover or similar in the backyard you'd probably have a lifetime supply of the nuts, at least. That article I posted earlier in the thread mentioned that Packard found it impossible to buy the fasteners in the US and had to resort to making them in-house. If they DID switch fasteners, can you imagine the problems you'd have if you were an Aircraftman in a squadron that operated both Mark IX and Mark XVI Spitfires? Or one that flew Lancasters with both Rolls Royce (or Ford Britain) made Merlins and Packard Merlins? You'd need two sets of tools, and then you'd have problems with tools getting switched or going missing. There was a joke about this in the second Cars movie, incidentally. Also incidentally, I was VERY surprised to find that that 1984 Cutlass Custom wagon I bought 20 years ago used METRIC screws (I had to buy new wrenches). Apparently GM had decided to go metric some years before 1984 - they did it during one of their annual plant retooling shutdowns. Probably took the opportunity to revamp the entire car line, too.
@@iskandartaib Well, it's about time you moved over to the metric system. You have to agree. It makes more sense?
@@MURDOCK1500 Not me, the Americans.. 😁 I suppose it does. It's happened or is happening in dribs and drabs - I was surprised to find the US Army has been metric since the first world war, for instance - their maps are in kilometers, which means their artillery operates in metric, and they march in kilometers, though I'm sure their tire rims are still in inches.. 😁 Still, milk will still be sold in gallons for many years to come...
@UCvmtRpxBzn61WydmoYsGfMg
As iskandartaib said, the English used their own fastener system. Their fine threads were BSF (British Standard Fine) and their course threads were BSW (British Standard Whitworth). They use different head sizes on the bolts than S.A.E. fasteners, and the sizes on the spanners (wrenches) relate to the bolt shank size in diameter, not the distance 'across the flats', which is what 'A/F' really stands for. One other notable oddity with the British system is that the thread angles are formed at 55 degrees, whereas most else, SAE and Metric included, use a 60 degree angle.
If it's a Packard, why does it say "Rolls Royce" on it?
bryankirk Soe one swapped the polished aluminum valve covers for the steel Plain Packard covers !!!
Did you no the difference between Rolls-Royce merlin and Packard merlin one thing I no is Rolls-Royce used white metal for brgs and Packard merlin used silver far better motor
+
If that's a packard engine then explain why you won't find Packard on it anywhere Yet rolls royce is stamp right on the heads
larryhullinger Because someone swapped out the polished aluminum VALVE COVERS for the stamped steel Plain Packard covers !! ! DUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!
Every Merlin ever made is a Rolls-Royce!
julianneale 55,527 were Packard versions, built to help save the Brits @$$'s in WWII !!!
@wilburfinnigan2142 yes exactly. Packard built under license the Rolls-Royce earo engine, called the Merlin. It's still a Rolls-Royce engine, just built in a different factory.
@@julianneale6128 Its a Packard built Merlin and the V1650-3 & 7's were further modified and used only in the Mustang !!!
@wilburfinnigan2142 let me help you with your wording there. It's a Packard built via licence from Rolls-Royce, Merlin. The R-R Merlin 68 & 69 were only used in the Mustang.
Surely you mean a "Rolls Royce" copied by Packard under licence!
bryankirk BULLSHIT !!!! TheBrits came BEGGING Packard to build the merlin as a shadow factory offshore away from the war !!! DUUUUHHH!!!!! Packard was the third co asked, Chrysler and Ford USA REFUSED to build them !! !
"NOT" Rolls Royce is a lie. During the war, lots of things were contracted to be built and assembled by other facilities. Chrysler, Westinghouse, and many others were contracted to build 1911 .45 cal pistols for Colt and they were still COLT pistols.
one of the rearest 1911 are the ones made by Singer
At least the music isn't irritating.
This would have been a better engine for the Tucker car.
It would have needed dual rear wheels.
A Rolls is a Rolls mate, no matter where it's built......
MyAdded BULL$HIT it is as Packard made many improvements and changes, and that is why the V1650-3 & 7 are only used in the Mustang !!! The supercharger on them was Vincents of Packard with the Bendix Pressure carb and his intercooler !!!
I'll refer you to my previous post...... The engine was built for an interceptor fighting aeroplane, not a long-range escort engine, of course, there must have been some modification, but a Rolls is a Rolls, and just because a yank wiped it with a rag doesn't make it American.....The Merlin absolutely made the Mustang, and previously with its original Allison the RAF pilots used to say it was good thirty feet and no higher.....@@wilburfinnigan2142
Necessary reading.....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650_Merlin@@wilburfinnigan2142
nie wierze
This is why Rolls Royce cars used Packard V8 engines all the way to the late 70s I believe, part of a patent exchange.
Huh?
Rolls Royce cars also used the GM Turbohydramatic 400 transmission and GM air conditioning for around 15 years. The car was half American!
Nope! RR used their own in house designed V8, made on an alloy block with wet iron sleeve liners. The Packard V8 was all iron. Rolls also used two SU CV carbs for the intake, although I saw a four barrel intake for one, so some market did get different carbs. But little similarity of engines. The GM TH400 was supposedly a cross design though, as RR needed an automatic far better than the old Borg Warner design, and wanted near perfect shifting. GM was happy to supply. They also used GM power steering pumps and AC compressors.
Not impressed with the Cleanliness of the Pistons and the surface corrosion on the Head Bolt studs during assembly, would not be happy if I paid for that rebuild, not good at all
Was it sabotaged to make it permanently unairworthy? There were hammer holes in the case, was it sugared too?
There is essentially no difference between a Rolls Royce built Merlin and a Packard built Merlin.
"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement."
Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum on line
Parts count was almost halved for the Packard making it faster and cheaper to build on an assembly line. I'm sure reliability increased too ..
@@xenuno WRONG!!!! Packard changed certain Items but only eliminates 13 parts !!!
WRONG stevehicks First thing Packard changed was they cast the head seperate from the upper block, because with the valve seats so deep in the cylinder RR Had a special tool for machining valve seats NOT available in USA buy splitting the head from the upper block Packards tooling could machine the valve seats !!
Could you have chosen a more IRRITATING set of "music" for this? Really, I'm not totally ready to just jump off a cliff yet... Next time, really work on making EVERYONE run in terror much faster than 3 seconds like you have here.