Ford re-drew the Merlin to automotive industry tolerances. The original RR drawings produced what I guess would be a “selected fit” which wasn’t good enough for mass production. Packard presumably did the same.

The Packard production was to increase output as it was thought we wouldn’t be able to produce enough here. To move production away from German bombing may have been a factor but not one I recall being particularly stressed.

From what’s left of them, if anybody could work out exactly what they orginally looked like, I would be impressed!

You’re right, that was where I read it.
It was the outers, not the inners, and particularly the port outer, that suffered reduction gear failures.

However, as it was Merlins that’s that theory out of the window.

Yes, I’m probably confusing the issue by suggesting four-bladed (Halifax) Hercules.

Wasn’t the Halifax four-blade prop a cure for failed (Merlin) reduction gears?

WA$.

Quite possibly. I’ve been prowling around the house trying to think what I’ve read recently. The trouble is, apart from not being able to find anything, the house resembles a particularly disorganised library.

I’ve read somewhere, very recently, about problems with the Halifax (IIRC) that were cured/helped by fitting four-bladed props. Owing to a shortage they were sometimes fitted to the inner engines only which was enough to reduce the problem. Would they have been Rotol or DH?

Is this a trick question? One appears to be a Bedford QL and the other ???

if it’s supposed to be a refueller is doing an excellent impression of what appears to be a Coles crane.

(No idea what the chassis is…)

I’ve just read Malta – The Last Great Siege 1940 – 1943 by David Wragg. ISBN 0 85052 990 5. It’s very good and gives more of an overview of the situation, rather than just from the RAF/military point of view.

Another good one is The Maltese Spitfire by Kiwi PR pilot Harry Coldbeck.

I’ve read several bits by Laddie Lucas (CO of 249 Sqn IIRC) but I can’t remember whether they’re in a single book or some of his collected snippets from multiple authors.

Surely it would have effectively meant an entirely new design. The VC-10 was designed for a specific BOAC requirement for “hot and high” airports on the old Empire routes. The only way Vickers could get an efficient enough wing was to put the engines somewhere else.
The fact that BOAC then tried to get out of buying them is another matter…