Hairs.
Back of neck.
The unmistakable sound of a Merlin engine flying over Salisbury a year or two back, made me stop in mid pint, stand up and look to the skies. I cannot remember the reason, just the sound and the sight.
Last summer, while on the Isle of Wight visiting friends, a Spit came across the Needles, did a barrel roll, and went back to the mainland (or North Island as IoW residents call it). That was probably the Boultbee two seater out for a jolly.
Interesting. From the aviation side of the fence, the story is that Packard had to re-draw all of Rolls-Royceâs blueprints for the Merlin. When Packard indicated an issue, Rolls-Royce assumed the drawings were too precise for Packard to follow. But Packard actually said they were too loose for their mass production standards.
Rolls-Royce still had a strong element of craftsmanship and hand-fitting (âfettlingâ) of parts on the production line. This seems characteristic of wartime and post-war English industry if Jaguar is any indication, with stocks of the same parts of slightly different sizes to be chosen as needed by the workers.
The Packard Merlins had as a result of this adaptation, much better spare parts interchangeability and less time fitting these replacement parts when needed. If I recall correctly, it is indeed true that Rolls-Royce and Packard Merlin components for the same sub-type were not interchangeable generally.
Dave
I can believe every word, Dave. Wonder why Packard went bust?f
Not sure. I suppose manufacturing for the commercial market is quite a different animal than the government\military sphere. Packard was a much smaller company than Ford pre-war, to be sure.
Did that JJ article cite a source for the Merlin/Packard specification story? Perhaps the aviation guys have it wrong, or/and (most likely) the sands of time have made the issue blurry, especially when oral history is concerned.
Dave
No source I can remember but no mention of which was âbetterâ - just the question of tolerances.
For information on the issue of Packard blueprints for the Merlin, see this on YoutubeâŚ
This link has been mentioned before on this site. It shows some of the XK production. Surprised me how much seems like was still done by hand even in 1961.
David
68 E-type FHC
I believe one of the Jay Leno videos on his Merlin powered Rolls stated as much. That Packard tightened up the tolerances so parts were interchangeable between engines. Whereas the RR Engines being hand fitted together if they broke they might be down for the count or take a long time to reassemble with correct fitting parts. The Packards could be fixed with parts off the shelf. Wish I could provide the link but its worth a search, it speaks almost entirely about the engines, he does drive the car but not enthusiastically, the torque breaks things. He stated that he stripped the teeth off two Moss boxes before putting a more robust tranny in it.
pauls
Hi Paul,
I read basically the same thing, Packard tightened up clearances and produced a better engine then the R-R version, in some book that covered all of the front line WW2 aircraft engines. I wish that I could recall itâs name but canât.
Robert:
What you read is probably accurately summarized here:
The article that John provided contains the following seemingly contradictory statements or commentsâŚ
âThe manufacturing tolerances were much looser than Packardâs standards. This was because Rolls-Royce had never implemented mass-production techniques to their assembly lines. Rather, they employed highly-trained âfittersâ to assemble the engines. The fitters filed or otherwise massaged individual parts to achieve a precise fit. They even tightened critical bolts by trained feel, rather than with calibrated torque wrenches. In effect, each Rolls-Royce-manufactured Merlin was a hand-built engine that reflected the companyâs traditions of premium quality and craftsmanshipâŚâ
So in my view the comments about the Packard version being âbetterâ isnât supported by the aforementionedâŚeasier to mass-produce yes and so easier to manufacture replacement parts, yes againâŚbut better, no!
I found the Jay Leno discussion about the engine/car. In the end it seems no engine was âbetterâ but Packard tightened up the tolerances for practical purposes, exchangeability of parts. The video is also a very nice tribute to veterans.
HARV. someplace in my family pix 1943, my Grandmother WELDING on a steel Liberty ship. full welding outfit! Boston Navy yard!
she was Irish and hated it was going to England, BUT money talks and BS walks!
ron
Les talk to the pilots who flew with the Packards, they looked for the engines with the BRONZE plate on the side of engine , and wanted to get the planes that got those engines!
saying they were smoother runnin and seemed more dependable, even better fuel consumption!
the pilots had more faith with USA stuff , some when in USA for war training and information work
would come by out house for visits and DAD would go over Electrical circuits (RADAR) , with them!
we all know that BS on whoâs got the biggest BS , but England aint the most honest at times!
and lets NOT get into the ALLISON V 1710, the collusion in the military back then was all about money, so Allison never got a fair chance for development,(TURBOCHARGING ETC>).
dont tell the Guys from the Pacific theater, and P-38s all had turbo allisons and cleaned house with them!
just take a look at the Merlin 1650 valve train, YIKES who designed that Monkey motion chaous , it was an after thought when going to 4 valve heads!
today the race Merlins use a design con rod that copy of the Allison !
and just couple yrs ago the most Famous VOODOO P51/Merlin at a race blew an engine(U-tube), i and others asked what let go in engine , and they refuse to give out the information!!
and also compare the Allison ROLLER Rocker valve train to the Merlin, jeez not even in the same ballpark!
ron
Did you notice the brief scene with the guys gas welding. It looked like they all had on ties and button down collars. Nothing like a sharp dressed welder!
This is such a silly nationalistic pile of crap Ron, believe what you like for whatever reasons you like. England was fighting for survival and as in all things love and war, everything goes and is up for grabs. And when talking about honesty, people in glass houses old boy!
hand built cars and engines will NEVER take the place of Modern ROBOTS for everything fitting EQUAL!
just look how good modern cars/engines are compared to old hand built stuff , comon gimme a break?
ron
Ron, where is it documented that pilots favored the Packards? As for monkey motion not sure thatâs relevant to the discussion. I read that the Germans had the very complex engines but by everyoneâs standard they were awesome machines.
pauls
When I move over to NZ in the late 60âs it was a very much more relaxed working environment, dad was told at his job interview â my name is âwhat ever it wasâ NOT MrâŚ
The toolroom where I finished my apprenticeship employed a britsh toolmaker who on his first day made the mistake of arriving to work with a tie. Next day all the tradesmen had crepe paper ties on, he got the hint and his came off 
German stuff only seemed complicated to other countries , not a bit to German engineers!
i was 7yrs old when we were taught in school that Germans were bad, so we kids went around 1st playin cowboys and Indians, then all of sudden it was cowboys and Germans, OK made that switch but just when we thought OK, BINGO we had to go around killin all the JAPANESE too, 1941/42.
my mind seemed to shut down because every thing was about WAR and killing!
it simply was/is NOT in my Natural Universe nature for living a usefull LIFE!
as for document of pilots preference , stop and think , after the WAR was over , do you really think any pilots would say any thing bad about Britain, some Brits say they would have won the war without USA help! they didnt finish paying LEND LEASE till the 2000s ,and then at a super discount!