Creaking DoorBought by a French buyer for 301 euros!
Bargain! 😀
Creaking Door… and also rescued Rolls-Royce after the RB.211 debacle.
Plus a government bale-out…and quite rightly so!
It was Ford producing Melins, in Sir Stanley’s words “like shelling peas”.
There was a year’s delay while they redrew the Merlin to motor industry mass-production standards rather than the RR hand-built standards.
Yes, it must have helped bring Rolls-Royce engines close to…
…the quality of Bristol engines! 😀
Creaking DoorSir Stanley Hooker
There can’t be many engineers who did so much for air-superiority in 1939-1945 and…
…did it all again in 1982 with the Pegasus in the Sea Harrier!
I’ve not read his book…it’s on my list though.
Creaking DoorSo a one-off, experimental Merlin produced 2,640 hp for 15 minutes… and a one-off, experimental Allison V-1710 produced 2,800 hp.
Not very applicable to what was in the aircraft, but it just shows my point… both engines were very comparable.
Agreed. The essential architecture of Merlin and V-1710 were virtually identical; water-cooled, V-12, 4-valve engines of 27/28 litres capacity…almost everything else is in the supercharging…and Rolls-Royce seem to have been better at it. 😉
…because the production Allison (in the P40 and P51 anyway) was unblown so did not perform anything like the Merlin at medium or high altitude.
You mean lacking a two-stage or turbo supercharger?
The most powerful factory variant was the V-1710-127, designed to produce 2,900 hp at low altitude and 1,550 hp at 29,000 feet. This engine was static tested at 2,800 hp and was planned for installation in an XP-63H aircraft. The end of the war ended this development, so this promising experiment never flew. The extra power of this version was derived from using exhaust turbines, not to drive a turbosupercharger, but to return that energy to turning the crankshaft. This was called a “turbo-compound” arrangement.
All sounds a bit ‘desperate’ to me…I can’t think of a single aircraft that went into production (let alone combat) with the V-1710 after about 1942. What is even more surprising is that the Merlin did so well after the arrival of the Griffon.
I think the V-1710 was only developed further because it was the best way for Allison to contribute to the war effort. Still not bad for an engine that was powering airships in 1931!
Still it all seems a very complicated and expensive way to (or rather failing to) produce 2500-2800hp.
Creaking Door…there was a speedboat fitted with two R-R peregrine engines in the USA…
Did I hear some forumites ears prick-up just then?
Two Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines…now…er…what was that funny twin-engined fighter that was fitted with those things called? 😀
Creaking DoorObviously very heavily ‘spares recovered’ but a very sad sight all the same.
I’ve got a bit of a soft spot for this much maligned ‘British’ interceptor.
Creaking DoorPower is nothing without control, what did it handle like?
I’ve absolutely no idea…but there is nothing to suggest that a fighter with a 2300hp radial engine couldn’t outperform a fighter with a 1500hp inline engine after all isn’t that what happened in 1941 when the RAF first encountered the Fw190 (with only a 1600hp engine)?
Later designs with the Centaurus, the Tempest II (2500hp/4050kg) and Sea Fury (24800hp/4190kg), both designed by Hawker would seem to support this theory as would the already mentioned Fw190 (1600hp/3200kg), or other designs such as the F4U (2000hp/4075kg), Ki-100 (1500hp/2540kg) or La (1850hp/2650kg).
Clearly the nations who developed these fighters didn’t think there was much wrong with a big fighter with a big air-cooled radial engine.
There are severall other factors to consider, reliability I have already mentioned, power to weight ratio, fuel consumption, and relative ease of manufacture (and maintenance); sleeve valves certainly pushed the Centaurus down the ranks, in the last 2 catagories.
‘Reliability’ is an extremely difficult thing to quantify. I’ve certainly never seen a direct comparison between any aero-engines of 1939-1945.
Also I don’t suppose the Spitfire pilots of 1941 took much comfort from how ‘unreliable’ the BMW 801 engine of the Fw190 was!
Don’t have appropriate power-to-weight ratios to hand; these are from Wikipedia, but (assuming they are correct) and to give a rough comparison: Centaurus VII 0.94hp/lb, Merlin 61 0.95hp/lb, BMW 801C-2 0.69hp/lb and Sabre V 1.29hp/lb.
Not sure I’d agree about ease of manufacture. One of the claims made (admittedly by the manufacturer) of sleeve-valve engines was that there were far fewer pieces to manufacture with regard to the valve-train. Of course being air-cooled there are no coolant radiators which are very expensive to manufacture (and also extremely vulnerable to combat damage)…and no water-injection either! 😉
Again I’ve not heard of a German Battle-of-Britain pilot taking much comfort from the fact that a Spitfire was much more difficult to manufacture than his Bf109 was!
As for maintenance, again an extremely difficult thing to quantify, but at least a sleeve-valve engine doesn’t have any valve clearances to adjust or coolant to top-up.
Don’t get me wrong, the Merlin was (and is) a great engine, and, for Britain at least, the most important of the war. There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both designs and each was ‘ahead’ at various points in their development but I think it is a great pity that the Centaurus wasn’t developed as a priority to fulfil the great early potential it had shown.
Creaking DoorHardly a level playing field.
Merlin – 27 litres, Centaurus – 53+ litres.
With near enough double the capacity it should have a bit more grunt.
Sorry, thought this was war…not formula three! 😀
Those bloody Germans eh? Turning up in 1941 with the FW 190 with its 42 litre engine…the cheating b’stards! :rolleyes:
Creaking DoorFive-Engined Lincoln
If I’m thinking of the correct testbed installation the Nomad was fitted in the nose of the Lincoln…
…and the aircraft could be flown with the four other engines shut down! 😀
Creaking DoorSo is it?
Start time: 13:18
The clock is running! 🙂
I hate it when you guys do this:(
Sorry, no criticism of the seller intended, and I genuinely don’t know if this is a Spitfire seat or not. 😮
Creaking Door“In late 1944 an RM.17SM Merlin was run at Derby for fifteen minutes at 36lb boost on 150-pn fuel with water injection, recording an output of 2640hp”.
…the P-51H Mustang’s engine was a Rolls-Royce (i.e. not Packard) built Merlin with water injection which was rated at 2,250hp. Not sure Allisons have got close to this other than in ‘racing special’ trim but I stand to be corrected.
Merlin be damned!
To quote Gunston again: “In 1941 Sydney Camm put a Centaurus (IV) into a Hawker Tornado and at 421mph created the fastest military aircraft in the world…
…but nobody seemed to notice!”
Bristol Centaurus IV – 100 octane fuel, no water injection, 2300hp! 🙂
Creaking DoorThanks for the responses.
I’m greatly reassured that little or nothing of any ‘value’ (and I’m not talking about money here) is being lost to the scrapman. My concern here of course is that ‘cornflakes’ to one person is the ‘holy-grail’ to another.
Re your recent comments on items on eBay – whilst I acknowledge your point, I have to say it does cause other problems – There is little or no regulation, so items from recoveries carried out illegally can easily be sold on (I am not saying that all such items fall into this category). – Items such as personal possessions and parts of section 5 firearms have appeared on this site and eBay has done little or more often nothing to remove them when asked. – Such sales lead to a perceived monetary value on such artefacts which in our experience has led to landowners demanding substantial fees to allow an excavation. – The market for these artefacts leads others to question our motives.
Finally I noted with interest the post mentioning a hurricane artefact having been sold with the provenance it was from a BoB casualty, the identity of which is now unknown. Such provenance does indeed seem to raise prices and I have to wonder how often such provenance is manipulated to assist sales and how many unidentified pieces are given value by adding details from our websites or museum displays? To qualify this I have seen an item on eBay that could not have possibly come from the aircraft stated, yet was listed as originating from a site we have excavated.
All good points. It would be hypocritical of me to criticize eBay itself as I for one have often bought relics through that site (as well as from aerojumbles). I don’t have a clue how it would even be possible to regulate the trade in these relics. We all have our own standards and morals. I have no problem buying pieces of an aircraft in which people died but find the sale and collection of ‘personal items’ from such crash sites abhorrent. A small distinction perhaps but it’s where I draw the line.
The problem of false provenance is also I’m sure widespread but not unique to eBay.
One of the first relics I ever bought (from Popham) was a ‘genuine’ piston from a Battle-of-Britain Messerschmitt. I can’t tell you how much of a boost it gave to my interest. I researched the crash, bought hundreds of pounds worth of books, visited the places connected with its loss and became interested in the engine design itself…only to find that my piston was clearly from an engine with only two valves per cylinder.
But, I’ve still got that piston, and I’m still interested in historic aviation, and I still collect relics although I’ve taken the trouble to become much more knowledgeable about the things that I collect.
I must also say that for those on the ‘outside’ (like me) who have never taken part in a dig the ‘digging’ community can seem something of a ‘closed shop’. I understand that there is a need for secrecy with regard to some sensitive information but this attitude can be misunderstood and can lead to suggestions of elitism, exclusion and possessiveness of ‘our’ history. I hope those comments will not be misconstrued.
Creaking DoorThe Aircraft in question was a de Havilland Hornet – so I suppose the answer to some of the above is actually YES!
As usual full details of our research, the dig and finds will appear on our website… but this is purely a hobby, I receive no funding and DO NOT SELL FINDS.
Wherever possible we do communicate with those we know have a specific interest in any aircraft we are investigating, and in this case Dave Collins has been kept up to date at all stages of this project and will be visiting to view the finds and will of course be welcome to any fittings from the scrap pile…
I stand corrected. A de Havilland Hornet certainly falls into the ‘save everything’ category.
I’m genuinely interested to know why you don’t sell anything? What becomes of everything in your ‘scrap pile’?
The bits recovered will be cleaned and identified and serve as a memorial to the tragedy. A selection is then made for display. But there is always part of the wreckage that cannot be displayed, that will be put in storage, and thus creating a poblem in itself. We do never sell anything, although the bits are availalable for projects such as the Stirling Project and Whitley project for which we have donated or loaned items.
Indefinite storage, as you say, must create huge problems in itself. Again I’m interested to know why you don’t sell anything?
Perhaps much of what has been lost in the past has been put into storage with the best intentions but as time passes and circumstances change the reality of indefinite storage has led to the ‘loss’ of much that was recovered.
I hope I don’t cause offence by asking these questions of either of you. It is clear from the descriptions of your recoveries and your donations to worthy restoration projects that your characters are not in question. I’m not in any way suggesting that you could ‘profit’ from recovering anything; the costs and time involved in recovery clearly make that a ridiculous suggestion.
Creaking DoorFirst go 0.375 seconds…those blue blocks are trying to kill me!
Second go 12.885 seconds…crashed into black edge. Does that count as CFIT?
Ninth go 18.675 seconds…Wahoo! 🙂
Now all I need to do is find an air force that doesn’t mind me crashing eight planes to make the grade. 😮
Creaking DoorFirst go 0.375 seconds…those blue blocks are trying to kill me!
Second go 12.885 seconds…crashed into black edge. Does that count as CFIT?
Ninth go 18.675 seconds…Wahoo! 🙂
Now all I need to do is find an air force that doesn’t mind me crashing eight planes to make the grade. 😮
Sign In
