The Night Mail

[SM42]

Worried that I may have misled through poor recollection about the first 109s and their engines,  I have found the source; The Decisive Duel, Spitfire vs 109 by David Isby. Luckily we have been pre Christmas tidying and furniture re-arranging (bad backs are for wimps apparently) so I knew exactly where it was.

 

I was mistaken. They were not RR Merlins but RR Kestrel VI engines.

 

The specified engine was the Jumo or the alternate BMW 116. Messerschmitt's preferred  engine was the DB600. None were available or proved at the time of the competition for the Luftwaffe's new fighter plane so four RR Kestrel VIs were purchased for the princely sum of one He70.

 

Still  a Rolls Royce powered 109 does seem a bit of an odd thought

 

Andy

 

Wooohoo! First on page 150.

Edited December 22, 2020 by SM42

[Dave Hunt]

1 hour ago, SM42 said:

I recall reading somewhere that some of the orignal Me109s had Merlin engines.

IIRC, Rolls Royce sold 4 to the Luftwaffe in the late 30s.

 

The RR engines sold to Germany were Kestrels, not Merlins.

 

Dave

 

PS - Sorry, just seen SM42's correction.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Dave Hunt
Adding PS

[PhilJ W]

35 minutes ago, SM42 said:

Worried that I may have misled through poor recollection about the first 109s and their engines,  I have found the source; The Decisive Duel, Spitfire vs 109 by David Isby. Luckily we have been pre Christmas tidying and furniture re-arranging (bad backs are for wimps apparently) so I knew exactly where it was.

 

I was mistaken. They were not RR Merlins but RR Kestrel VI engines.

 

The specified engine was the Jumo or the alternate BMW 116. Messerschmitt's preferred  engine was the DB600. None were available or proved at the time of the competition for the Luftwaffe's new fighter plane so four RR Kestrel VIs were purchased for the princely sum of one He70.

 

Still  a Rolls Royce powered 109 does seem a bit of an odd thought

 

Andy

 

Wooohoo! First on page 150.

I don't recall any 109's being fitted with Rolls Royce engines except for the Spanish Bouchon's that came after the war. The prototype Junkers J87 Stuka was fitted with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Junkers purchased ten Kestrel engines but their own Jumo engine came on stream and that was used on subsequent airframes.

[SM42]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I don't recall any 109's being fitted with Rolls Royce engines except for the Spanish Bouchon's that came after the war. The prototype Junkers J87 Stuka was fitted with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Junkers purchased ten Kestrel engines but their own Jumo engine came on stream and that was used on subsequent airframes.

 

 

It seems that only two of the 4 purchased went to Messerschmitt. The other two went to competitors so Junkers possibly had one of them which was fitted to the Ju87 prototype

 

Andy

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, Tony_S said:

It must have been about 197 I bought the boots so perhaps they had got planes that didn’t require woolly lined boots then. 

That would tie in with the film being made in the late 60's (released in 69).  Because after the film unit had finished with them they weren't taken back into Spanish service but were sold off.

[PhilJ W]

Ten engines were purchased by Junkers but only two were used. Messerschmitt purchased four engines but used only two. That leaves ten engines unaccounted for but IIRC Junkers flew a prototype four engine heavy bomber in the mid thirties before the German air ministry dropped the idea of heavy bombers.

[Tony_S]

2 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

Spanish service but were sold off.

I don’t think my boots had been anywhere an aeroplane! They had a metal thing to reinforce the sole on one side. Perhaps the Spanish Airforce had some motorbikes as well.

Tony

[TheQ]

1 hour ago, Tony_S said:

It must have been about 197 I bought the boots so perhaps they had got planes that didn’t require woolly lined boots then. 

197 you'd  have been closer to needing a fire proof suit to fly Icarus wings glued together with wax..

Edited December 22, 2020 by TheQ

[Florence Locomotive Works]

More to follow later. 
 

 

Douglas

[Tony_S]

2 minutes ago, TheQ said:

197 you'd  have been closer to needing a fire proof suit to fly Icarus wings glued together with wax..

Oops! 

[TheQ]

8 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Ten engines were purchased by Junkers but only two were used. Messerschmitt purchased four engines but used only two. That leaves ten engines unaccounted for but IIRC Junkers flew a prototype four engine heavy bomber in the mid thirties before the German air ministry dropped the idea of heavy bombers.

I would suspect at least some were taken apart to see how they were built, and any good ideas used to improve german engines..

[SM42]

8 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Ten engines were purchased by Junkers but only two were used. Messerschmitt purchased four engines but used only two. That leaves ten engines unaccounted for but IIRC Junkers flew a prototype four engine heavy bomber in the mid thirties before the German air ministry dropped the idea of heavy bombers.

 

It all goes to show that even when the clouds of war were looming, it was always the money (or in one case an aeroplane) that was followed.

 

This can come a bit of a surprise when the popular idea or myth is that each country kept to its own during the 1930s

 

Andy

[SM42]

1 minute ago, TheQ said:

I would suspect at least some were taken apart to see how they were built, and any good ideas used to improve german engines..

 

Don't use a carburetor being one lesson they probably learnt.

 

Andy

[PhilJ W]

By 1935/36 when these engines were supplied they were already becoming obsolete. The Merlin went into production at about the same time. Junkers paid Rolls-Royce £20,514/2s/6d for their ten engines.

Edited December 23, 2020 by PhilJ W

[jamie92208]

59 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

That would tie in with the film being made in the late 60's (released in 69).  Because after the film unit had finished with them they weren't taken back into Spanish service but were sold off.

The Merlin was certainly a good engine, however I believe that it only became a great engine after Stanley Hooker sorted out the turbocharger by doing some analysis of the gas flows.  That's if I've remembered his autobiography correctly. I think it was called, 'Some kind of Engineer'.  I think he also designed the Pegasus that powered the Harrier.

 

Jamie

[J. S. Bach]

2 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

More to follow later. 
 

 

Douglas

Hmmm, that does not look like any ME-109 that I have ever seen!

[Happy Hippo]

2 hours ago, TheQ said:

I would suspect at least some were taken apart to see how they were built, and any good ideas used to improve german engines..

If you read LTC Rolt's autobiography, you'll find that for a time, he was involved in the mass production of Merlin engines at Rolls Royce.

 

He was not impressed by the rather poor build quality.

 

However, one must take into account that RR and the RAF were not really expecting much of a life out of them before they needed replacement.

 

Most large engines of the period that are still flying have auxiliary oil pumps, the use of which are used as part of the  pre start procedures.  they lift oil up to the top of the engine from the sump.  It increases the life of the engine as the tolerances, compared to a modern engine, are somewhat sloppier.

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

The Merlin was certainly a good engine, however I believe that it only became a great engine after Stanley Hooker sorted out the turbocharger by doing some analysis of the gas flows.  That's if I've remembered his autobiography correctly. I think it was called, 'Some kind of Engineer'.  I think he also designed the Pegasus that powered the Harrier.

 

Jamie

It was a twin stage supercharger, driven off the crankshaft that gave the Merlin the edge over the  American Allison and the MB engine in the Me109.  The MB engine although larger than the Merlin only had a single stage supercharger so could not develop the extra horsepower at altitude as it was running out of air.

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

If you read LTC Rolt's autobiography, you'll find that for a time, he was involved in the mass production of Merlin engines at Rolls Royce.

 

He was not impressed by the rather poor build quality.

 

However, one must take into account that RR and the RAF were not really expecting much of a life out of them before they needed replacement.

 

Most large engines of the period that are still flying have auxiliary oil pumps, the use of which are used as part of the  pre start procedures.  they lift oil up to the top of the engine from the sump.  It increases the life of the engine as the tolerances, compared to a modern engine, are somewhat sloppier.

 

I read something about this, a while ago in the VMCC Journal. RR weren't equipped for mass production and subcontracted extensively, as all military suppliers did at that time. The results were predictable. 

[polybear]

6 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

If you read LTC Rolt's autobiography, you'll find that for a time, he was involved in the mass production of Merlin engines at Rolls Royce.

 

My last Boss (and a really good friend) had somehow acquired a RR Merlin Rocker Cover (complete with Rolls-Royce emblem) whilst in the RAF - it lived on the mantlepiece of his Married Quarters; he left it behind during one of the many postings to other RAF bases.

Be worth a few quid now I suspect.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

I read something about this, a while ago in the VMCC Journal. RR weren't equipped for mass production and subcontracted extensively, as all military suppliers did at that time. The results were predictable. 

Many Merlins were eventually manufactured by Packard in the US. I once talked to a former pilotvwho had flown Spifires in Burma. He said thatvthe Packard engined ones were better than the RR ones as they ran better.

 

Jamie

[rockershovel]

54 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Many Merlins were eventually manufactured by Packard in the US. I once talked to a former pilotvwho had flown Spifires in Burma. He said thatvthe Packard engined ones were better than the RR ones as they ran better.

 

Jamie

 

RR also manufactured later versions of the Merlin, using mass production methods, at factories in Glasgow and Manchester (a Ford factory, as it happens). These engines differed considerably from the earlier versions, partly in using changes designed for mass production. 

 

A friend in the VMCC worked for Marshall’s in Cambridge, who have a long history of contract maintenance for the RAF, and have also done work for the Imperial War Museum and Battle of Britain flight. His version is that the earlier versions of the Merlin suffered badly from being very difficult to maintain at squadron level, because of their “hand built” nature - spares didn’t fit from the box, but had to be selectively assembled and/or fettled to specific engines. 

 

Its also important to remember that the Spitfire, by 1943 was not a first-Line aircraft, having been superseded by the Typhoon for the ground-attack, close-support tactics used in Normandy. The Typhoon was also capable of matching the speed of the FW190, which the Spitfire couldn’t achieve. A lot of obsolete equipment was sent to the Far East, where Japanese technical superiority had long been lost and conditions were very different - the Grant tank, obsolete as designed and completely outclassed in the Western theatres, being a good example. 

[Happy Hippo]

The other interesting information about Packard Merlin engines is they were not manufactured with UK nuts and bolts, but American equivilents.

 

It meant that bomber and fighter squadrons that had fleets with both types of engine, Some Spitfire Mk IX could be fitted with either; the MkXVI was exclusively fitted with Packard engines, plus Lancasters from Canada which were Packard Merlin engined, being mixed with UK manufactured aircraft required two different tool kits to be issued to all the engine mechanics.

 

By the time the Spitfire range got to XII they became Griffon engined, (The XVI being the exception). The most produced Griffon variant being the Spitfire, XIV and  then the XVIII.  After that the roman numerals were dropped from the Mark.

 

Although the Typhoon has better flat out speed than the Spitfire, it was not as agile nor had the high altitude performance.  This was recongnised quite early on and led to the development of the much better Tempest.

 

Again the Tempest was an airframe split between 2 engines with the Mk II getting the Bristol Centaurus radial engine , whilst the Mk V got the Napier Sabre.

 

The Centaurus version went on to become the Sea Fury which was the fastest of the piston engined fighters.  Good enough to shoot down a Mig 15 in the Korean War when the Sea Fury was already considered obsolete.

 

 

 

 

 

[Happy Hippo]

I'm now looking forward to a complete breakdown of post war jets by our resident jet jockey................

 

That ought to keep him going until the new year.

[PhilJ W]

10 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

If you read LTC Rolt's autobiography, you'll find that for a time, he was involved in the mass production of Merlin engines at Rolls Royce.

 

He was not impressed by the rather poor build quality.

 

However, one must take into account that RR and the RAF were not really expecting much of a life out of them before they needed replacement.

 

Most large engines of the period that are still flying have auxiliary oil pumps, the use of which are used as part of the  pre start procedures.  they lift oil up to the top of the engine from the sump.  It increases the life of the engine as the tolerances, compared to a modern engine, are somewhat sloppier.

 

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I read something about this, a while ago in the VMCC Journal. RR weren't equipped for mass production and subcontracted extensively, as all military suppliers did at that time. The results were predictable. 

 

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Many Merlins were eventually manufactured by Packard in the US. I once talked to a former pilotvwho had flown Spifires in Burma. He said thatvthe Packard engined ones were better than the RR ones as they ran better.

 

Jamie

 

2 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

The other interesting information about Packard Merlin engines is they were not manufactured with UK nuts and bolts, but American equivilents.

 

It meant that bomber and fighter squadrons that had fleets with both types of engine, Some Spitfire Mk IX could be fitted with either; the MkXVI was exclusively fitted with Packard engines, plus Lancasters from Canada which were Packard Merlin engined, being mixed with UK manufactured aircraft required two different tool kits to be issued to all the engine mechanics.

 

 

They asked Ford to produce the Merlin but Henry Ford turned them down. I had a relative who was lost flying a Halifax III from an OTU. Many of the OTU aircraft had been 'retired' from front line service and some should not have even been flying. I have the details of the aircraft including engine numbers and that revealed it was fitted with three Rolls-Royce Merlins and one Packard engine. My relative had completed his training and was waiting to be sent to a squadron when they were sent at night to assist in testing a new radar system over Cardigan Bay when his aircraft collided with another Halifax.