|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 3, 2006 19:06:28 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Jan 9, 2007 16:14:21 GMT 12
This it?
Cheers,
Stu.
|
|
|
|
Post by planeimages on Jan 10, 2007 17:16:59 GMT 12
I wish those props would make up their minds which way the are rotating!!!
Varying RPM and something of a "visual Doppler effect" must really confuse the video camera with its fixed frame rate.
Three Merlin/Packard-Merlins plus the Allison (I assume) of the Kittyhawk stirs the soul even on U tube.
The propellor torque effects are readily visible when the MKVIII rolls along. The port side really digs in until lift is established. I understand this a/c has a "grass field" undercarriage or at least the toe settings for grass.
|
|
Keith Webb
Leading Aircraftman
Loves old aircraft and vehicles
Posts: 6
|
Post by Keith Webb on Jan 20, 2007 22:47:11 GMT 12
 Here's the pair in action the day before the airshow.  Guy Bourke takes the Mk XVI aloft for the first time, Temora Sept 06 |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 20, 2007 23:28:19 GMT 12
Very nice shots!!
Welcome to the forum Keith, thanks for posting the photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jan 21, 2007 10:43:54 GMT 12
Yes, they are very good photos. What a great pair!
|
|
|
|
Post by glenn on Feb 18, 2007 1:03:08 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 18, 2007 1:22:42 GMT 12
Oh my, aren't they a pretty pair!
Thanks Glenn, fantastic photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 18, 2007 13:18:26 GMT 12
Wonderful. I bet it sounded great!
|
|
|
|
Post by planeimages on Feb 18, 2007 14:00:05 GMT 12
Yes, they did. The harmonies created by the R-R 70 in the MK VIII and the R-R Packard 266 in the MK XVI were delightful. The 266 has a much harder sound. Different exhaust stacks, camshaft timing and blower drives combined to give each variant its specific note. They may also have different propellers. Both engines produce virtually identical hp. The machining tolerances of the Packard are much finer than the R-R aero-engine specifications. Sir Stanley Hooker writes in his book, "Not much of an Engineer", that the Packard engineers were surprised by the R-R tolerances. They quizzed by the Poms and were asked, "Are they too fine for you?" the Yanks replied along the lines that the car engines they normally produced had to be mechanically quieter and needed to be made with finer tolerances. Rather the reverse of what one might expect; especially as R-R made its own car engines which were seen as the epitome of silence in motion. Here are two shots of the exhaust stacks:  MK XVI Packard Merlin 266  MK VIII Merlin 70 |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 18, 2007 18:12:11 GMT 12
A friend of mine who has restored both Packard and Rolls Merlins says the Packards were definitely superior. Rolls Royce versions used a lot of hand finishing (One subcontractor finished bearing journals on the Crankshafts using grinding paste and hand held wooden blocks!) As a result, getting replacement parts to fit in the field was a nightmare - In terms of restoring engines it still is. Packard also used "man sized" hardware to hold things together - for example the 30 or so small screws holding the supercharger housing together were replaced with 8 decent sized bolts. A common joke amongst engine shops is "how do you tell a Packard Merlin from a Rolls Royce? the packard has the oil on the INSIDE"
Unfortunately the whole subject of Packards vs Rolls has been clouded with various people's opinions. It seems that a lot of mis-information spread around during wartime, and troubles "blamed" on the Packards supposed lack of reliability often had the root cause in operating issues rather than the engines themselves. A certain amount of "anglo-centric" bias may also have been circulating - after all Rolls Royce were the Ultimate British car manufacturer!
|
|
|
|
Post by planeimages on Feb 18, 2007 21:17:21 GMT 12
Pretty standard British engineering. Ever set the points on the distributor on an A series BMC in anything other than a Mini variant?
The Brist seem to suffrer from NIH, Not Invented Here. syndrome.
|
|
