Talk:Rolls-Royce Merlin/Archive 1

Applications

Need to introduce somehow that is was used in the Mosquito and the Lancaster too. And Fairey Battle. And Boulton-Paul Defiant. Indeed there should be a comprehensive list of ALL aircraft types using the Merlin.

- JidGom 11:50 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The article contains Rubbish

The article claims that the Air Ministry considered two aeroplanes for development in 1936, the Hurricane and the Spitfire. The Air Ministry did no such thing. They did absolutely diddly squat about upgrading the British fighter fleet at that time mainly because they remained convinced that war would never happen. Tommy Sopwith of the Hawker Aircraft Company developed the Hurricane fighter entirely as a private venture exercise much as he had the foresight to see that Britain needed something significantly better than she had. The company records clearly show (and I worked at the Kingston plant that made them (but not at the time!)), that no contract from the Air Ministry was received for the aircraft's development. The air ministry only placed a production contract in 1936 (the development had taken place before this) only once the capabilities had been demonstrated in the air. It is remarkable that development was completed so quickly. Most aircraft project take at least six years from the first line being drawn to something actually flying.

The Harrier "jump jet" (US: AV8B) was also similarly developed by Hawker entirely as a private venture, but not to met any perceived National emergency. Hawker were short of work and had a necessity to retain its expert engineering staff, and the P1127 aeroplane (which later evolved into the Harrier via the Kestral) not only retained the expertise, but allowed the company to develop some new expertise. During the development, financial aid was forthcoming from the US Marine Corps, who could see a role for the aeroplane.

The Spitfire was also started (later than the Hurricane) as a private venture by Supermarine, but funding from the Air Ministry came very quickly as they were awakening to the potential disaster that would befall Britain if she didn't have any modern fighters. Production also started in 1936, but due to the greater comlpexity of the aeroplane, far fewer numbers were available by the Battle of Britain than the Hurricane.

86.132.203.236 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The way forward is to go through the article (and related articles) citing references for every statement. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. The foresight of the Hawker Aircraft Company and it's heroic achievements are an important topic and it would be great to have an article. PeterGrecian 09:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not have been preparing for war, but the RAF was planning on using the two designs to replace its older fleet of aircraft, such as the Furys and Gladiators still in service at that time.

Magus732 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Read "Reply to This article contains rubbish". The Air Ministry was far from twiddling its thumbs and doing diddly squat. That myth has long been shot down by the likes of Alfred Price and Leo McKinstry, amongst other aviation historians. The text odf the article has been updated accordingly. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

SpaceX Merlin engine

I propose moving Merlin engine to Merlin engine (aircraft) and creating in its place a disambiguation page, which includes Merlin engine (aircraft) and Merlin engine (rocket). SpaceX named its new rocket engine Merlin. Since a lot of pages already link to Merlin engine, it will take some work to do a proper move. However, I don't have time to do this today, so if you have time and inclination, then have at it.

Dschmelzer 19:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

leave it alone?

How about we leave this page alone, and include a disambig notice at the start of the page? Only needs its own disambig page when there are lots of terms with the same name, rather than 2. Mat-C 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Other uses

The use of the Merlin as an aircraft engine is its original intent and unarguably its most significant role However, ignoring the history of its automotive and marine roles is ignoring several decades of its history when these were far more significant uses. Cleveland and Reno were only 4 days of the year.

Bring back the automotive section and create a section that includes Unlimited Hydrofoil (where you couldn't win without a Merlin until modern turboshaft came along) and offshore racing. A link to Miss Budweiser would be a good start.

Griffon engine

How about adding a link to the successor of the Merlin, the Rolls Royce Griffon?

Except the Rolls-Royce Griffon was the successor of the Rolls-Royce Buzzard and Rolls-Royce R. Perhaps you might like to put something in Rolls-Royce Aircraft Piston Engines which is intended to be an overview of the developments ? PeterGrecian 14:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Packard

I understand from private but reliable sources that Packard greatly improved the maintainability and that their changes were incorporated in subsequent British versions. I am not sure that I should add this now. Does anyone else of information bout this? Origenally, it was derived from a racing engine and used only within a few miles of the factories. David R. Ingham

[1] When the first of the Packard-built Merlins arrived in Britain, the engineers at Rolls-Royce stripped it down and were amazed to find that the production-line built Packard engine, far from being as bad as they expected it to be for component tolerance, was actually better. Up until then, RR Merlins were hand built, every face being finished off by hand and this time-consuming process placed great strain on the production cabability of the skilled workforce involved in the manufacture of these engines. The Packard engine changed all this, although there were still some at RR who remained unconvinced of the quality of the American engine, produced as it was by a largely unskilled and semi-skilled female workforce. They were to be proved wrong on all counts.

The early Packard-built Merlins suffered from crankshaft failures, to the extent that a RR Engineer was sent over to investigate the cause. He discovered that workers in the forging shop where the crankshafts were made were emptying their half-finished bottles of Coca-Cola into the quenching tank, used for quenching the crankshafts after they had been heat-treated. This made the water slightly acidic, which then caused micro-etching of the metal. After this practice was stopped the crankshaft failures ceased. Ian Dunster 19:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to me. Why would someone do that? It's not just a matter of the stupidity of it. Why would you pour out perfectly good Coke? Bottles of Coke back then were 6.5 ounces. You don't half-finish 6.5 ounces and then look for a place to pour the rest out. I find the idea of people doing that regularly to be pretty hard to believe. TomTheHand 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OK - give me a few days to remember where I read it (I've got the book/magazine with it in somewhere) and I'll post the info here: Ian Dunster 00:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Packard story is a myth for sure. RR had seen plenty of mass produced Merlins long before Packard got involved. RR mass-produced Merlins at Hillington - semi-skilled workers, lots of single-purpose machine tools - and Ford at Trafford Park, both from 1940. It reads like an mangling of the (?) apocryphal tale of the Ford engineer visiting RR and telling his counterpart that they cannot be expected to build Merlins using RR drawings. "Are our tolerances too fine for your people old chap ?", asks the RR engineer condescendingly. "No," says the Ford engineer, "they're not bloody fine enough". Angus McLellan 23:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake - it was con-rod failures and it was the cutting-oil tank they were pouring Coke into:

"Before the skew-gear problem arose, it seemed that the cause of failures were always comparatively easily traceable to specific flaws in the manufacture or operation; perhaps the most bizarre was with some of the earlier Packard Merlins, when cracks were found in their con-rods. An immediate investigation revealed that there was no deviation in the accepted practice for fabricating these parts. However, it transpired that factory workers, when quenching their thirst with Coca-Cola, emptied the un-consumed liquid into the cutting oil tank. The acidity then etched the surface of the rods and under certain conditions the chemical reaction created minute flaws. The buffing and polishing was then completed in a highly professional manner, and the technique swaged the metal in such a way that the resulting microscopic cracks could not be seen with the naked eye. When I first saw the Packard Merlin, I was most impressed by the quality of its exterior and the superb finish—it might have been prepared for a showroom rather than to be rushed into battle encased in the cowling of a Spitfire or Lancaster."

From the The Deafening Silence article by Alex Henshaw in the February 1984 issue of Aeroplane Monthly.

I seem to remember reading a more detailed piece about it somewhere else but can't recall where - perhaps it's just my memory playing tricks as I've just realised the magazine is 21 years old! Ian Dunster 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the source. It still strikes me as rumor being passed off as fact, though, like a very real example of how "there were still some at RR who remained unconvinced of the quality of the American engine, produced as it was by a largely unskilled and semi-skilled female workforce." It simply doesn't make any sense. Apart from how illogical the premise is, Coke isn't even very acidic; you couldn't etch forged steel with pure Coke, let alone a little bit of Coke in your cutting oil. Coke wouldn't mix with oil, either. TomTheHand 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RR prejudice against semi-skilled women doesn't ring true anyhow - RR like all British manufactureres in the war empoyed woen for many jobs "Hillington Rolls Royce plant near Glasgow in 1943. Here, out of a workforce of 20,000, 39 percent were women and only 4.5 percent were skilled men" GraemeLeggett 08:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add, cutting oils are used as emulsions. The oil is the lubricant and the water cools the cutting head.GraemeLeggett 09:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of prior mass-production of the Rolls-Royce Merlin:- "... the preponderance of unskilled labour at Glasgow rendered the factory particularly reliant on up-to-date production methods and mechanisation. Machine tools were arranged and set for single-purpose operations, and the factory was planned on a flow production basis, with the minimum of rehandling." (Ritchie, Sebastian Industry and Air Power. The Expansion of British Aircraft Production, 1935-1941, Frank Cass, 1997, p135) Rolls-Royce Glasgow was operational by February 1941. (ibid, p135 & p144) Angus McLellan 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Parapgrah

Howdy, all. I removed this paragraph because it didn't really seem to fit in well with the rest of the article. However, since it was so wholesale, I wanted to at least leave it here in case anyone wanted to do anything with it.

This information is not a myth, as has been asserted by another poster. It came to the writer directly from a Rolls-Royce engineer who was directly employed by the factory to supervise in-field repairs and rebuilds at various RAF bases during the Battle of Britain and after. I worked with this man for several years in the early 70s, and he was a fund of inside information that didn't find its way into the history books. Anybody who doubts this can contact me directly at dhenderson@iol.ie

Cheers. Madmaxmarchhare 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Automobile use

I think the Automobile use section does not fit well with the rest of the article. How about a separate Rolls-Royce Merlin Powered Automobiles article and a link to it in the Other uses for the engine section ? PeterGrecian 12:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's large enough for an article of it's own. By the way, I read an article about someone in Australia that used two cylinders from a Merlin engine to make the world's largest V twin motorcycle, but I haven't found anything using google yet. Update: I managed to find something [1][2][3]// Liftarn

Caburettor vs Fuel Injection

I was hoping to read more about the issues the Merlin had with the use of the Caburettor in negative-G conditions vs the Fuel Injected german engines - in particular, how the problem was finally solved. I have seen it mentioned a few times that the Luftwaffe escaped further engagement over the channel during the BoB simply by diving away.

Especially in the section comparing the Merlin to other engines, would some information regarding this be appropriate?

See Miss Shilling's orifice: no, it's not porn :). Probably should be linked from this article though. Mark Grant 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Great minds think alike! I just did exactly that. --Guinnog 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The usual solution to a German fighter suddenly diving before the introduction of the negative-G carburettor was a half-roll and an inverted dive, i.e., pulling back on the stick and following the enemy aircraft upside-down but now pulling positive-G. This ameliorated the effect of negative-G on the engine but obviously the pilot had to have the presence of mind (or training) to do this.

BTW, If you look at any contempory film of a Spitfire or Hurricane doing a roll you will usually see a noticeable puff of smoke from the exhausts as the aircraft becomes inverted - that's the engine coughing as the fuel flow momentarily stops. Ian Dunster 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A small correction, if I may. Miss Shilling's Orifice was not the carburettor diaphram but a flow restrictor in the fuel line. The Merlin's fuel pump could deliver far more than required and the solution to negative G was twofold: the diaphram preventing fuel in the carburettor float chamber surging and Miss Shilling's Orifice to restrict flow while the float valve was ineffective due to the surge. When negative G was encountered firstly the engine suffered starvation as the fuel surged to the top of the float chamber uncovering the delivery ports (cured by the diaphram) and secondly it was flooded by excess fuel (cured by Miss Shilling's Orifice). It was this fuel surge that caused the characteristic black smoke already mentioned.

DesmondW 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Supercharging

There is practically no discussion about the Merlin's supercharger which was the primary feature taking the engine from 1030hp @18,000ft (Merlin II) to 1710hp @26,000ft (Merlin 63) and beyond, a staggering improvement largely due to Stanley Hooker who was head of supercharger development.

Merlin numbers are confusing and the versions used in Spitfire Marks I, II, & V (Merlin II/III, XII, 45/46 respectively) were all fitted with single stage single speed superchargers with effective ceiling ~26,000ft

The two stage Merlin was initially developed for a high altitude Wellington bomber and had two centrifugal compressors in series with an intercooler between them. The supercharger also had two gears that changed automatically to high gear at ~16,000ft. Fitted to a Spitfire Mk V airframe as a hurried stopgap to counter the Fw 190 it transformed the performance to over 400mph @20,000ft and ceiling over 35,000ft.

To fit the engine the Mk IX Spitfire had a longer nose; although a rushed stopgap it became by far the most widely built version.

DesmondW 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford

This article does not mention the Merlin engines produced by Ford. It is mentioned in Stanley Hooker's book that they did, and you can find something about it by Googling. It seems about 30,000 engines were made by Ford. [4] Man with two legs 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Didnt Ford refuse to produce engines for Rolls ROyce because 1: He was sympathetic to the Nazis, and 2: Because he believed Britain would fall and he would never get paid? I thought thats why they went to Packard. Xiolablu3 (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Added information

I've added information about the Merlin 130/131 series engines, which were developed for the de Havilland Hornet. I have also drawn up a specification sheet for the Merlin II/III;

• Because they were the most important Merlin variants during 1939-40.
• Allows comparison with the later two stage two speed supercharger developments.

Interesting to note that the use of 100 Octane fuel boosted the normally quoted maximum hp for these variants by 130 hp; supplies of this fuel were just becoming available at the beginning of the Battle of Britain (see http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html). There need to be a few more sources added for the main article.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to "This Article Contains Rubbish

Actually user 86.132.203 etc is wrong in his/her facts; here's what Roy Chaplin, who did a lot of the design work on the Hurricane has to say;

"To return to the early life of the Hurricane, I should now like to tell you...of our relationship with the Air Ministry...this was before the days of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Many people believe that the Air Ministry issued a specification and that we proceeded to design an aeroplane to satisfy it. In fact, the sequence was the other way about. We initially submitted an solicited proposal for a new aeroplane together with a drawing and the Air Ministry proceeded to write a specification around this. Thus it was that...Specification F5/34 was written around Camm's first monoplane...when it was decided to fit the PV12 and make the undercarriage retractable...a new Specification was written in August 1934. It was this document which laid down the requirements which...K5083 was designed to meet." (Roy Chaplin in Sydney Camm and the Hurricane Years.) From this it is clear that the Air Ministry was keeping up with the new fighter designs; to claim that the AM did "diddly squat" about upgrading the British fighter fleet is wrong. During the 1930s the pace of change in aviation design was incredibly fast; a design which may have seemed good one year could be rendered obsolescent in a couple of months. The reason the Air Ministry didn't place orders until "the capabilities had been demonstrated" is obvious - what was the point in placing mass production orders for aircraft which could turn out to be duds? From Chaplin's account the specification which laid down the requirements for the Hurricane was issued in August 1934. From then on officials from the Air Ministry, like Ralph Sorley (who worked out concept of the 8 gun armament), worked closely with the Hawker design office. Roy Chaplin again;

"There had been earlier rumours of a production contract and...the Hawker Board had issued instructions in March (1936) for planning...for 1,000 aircraft...But it was not until June (1936) that we received an official production contract. It is solely due to the foresight and courage of the Hawker Directors...that something like an extra 500 aircraft had been delivered by August 1940..." This is where Hawker did take the initiative; however the "delay" was three months, there were still design changes taking place on the prototype and it was becoming clear that the PV12, the engine around which the aircraft was designed, was having problems. It's so easy, with brilliant 20/20 hindsight, to claim the Air Ministry was doing nothing - in 1936 things weren't quite as clear cut.Minorhistorian (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Slightly OT, but the stuff on the Merlin powered cars and boats definitely needs to be on a separate page (which is now online). Also "Civilian Use" made no mention of the Merlin's use as a civilian aero-engine, which is surely more important than the peripheral use, as interesting as it may be, in cars and speed boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorhistorian (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumor mill?

• "The Merlin name came from the bird". Was that in keeping with Rolls' system of aeroengine names? Did Rolls have a system?
• PV-12. Was it derived or developed from the Curtiss D-12? (I've heard that.)
• "and American PT boats". I deleted that; it's a common myth. The PTs used a variation on the 1650ci Liberty, whence the confusion. Trekphiler (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did RR have a system - probably just birds (Buzzard, Condor, Eagle,Goshawk, Merlin etc) for pistons and rivers for jets (Avon, Derwent, Trent, Nene etc.) MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, RR named its piston engines after predatory birds and its jet engines after rivers

The PV 12 followed a long line of RR engines starting with the Eagle of WW I; although the Curtiss D-12 inspired the concept of clean engine installations (Fairey Fox), with none of the drag-inducing frontal radiators etc the Merlin was in no way derived from it. Rolls-Royce had an extremely good design team and had their own design concepts.

If you have evidence of Packard Merlins not being used in PT boats, please, can we see it? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just found something Packard PT boat engine Interesting; well there ya go! Were these the engines used in British MTBs and MGBs??Minorhistorian (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I have heard the system mentioned (geez, good memory :[ ). Not being used? I've seen it, but not a source at hand, or 1 I recall. (Thanx for the link, BTW!)

On a completely unrelated Q, were the V1650s used in Brit aircraft, or just in 'stangs? Trekphiler (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire LF. Mk. XVIs used V-1650s (called Merlin 266 in British service); some Lancasters used V-1650s as well as some Canadian built Hurricanes and Mosquitoes and Aussie built Mosquitoes - a list can be found here: Merlin/V-1650.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a common myth that the Packard engine was variation of the Liberty V-12 engine.

"Despite the commonplace assumption, the new-generation Packard marine engine, initially tagged the 4M-2500, was anything but a re-popped Liberty. Instead, Vincent, Packards lead engineer, started with a clean sheet and designed a four-stroke, 60-degree V-12 with an aluminum block with a bore of 6.04 inches and a 6.50-inch stroke, which brought it to 2,490 cubic inches. Weighing 2,900 pounds, the 4M-2500 had four valves per cylinder, a 6.4:1 compression ratio, and a centrifugal supercharger, later models were also fitted with an intercooler. A Holley 1685F aircraft carburetor supplied the fuel, 100-octane gasoline, fired by two spark plugs per cylinder. The first engines developed 1,200hp, but improved versions with higher boost levels nominally made 1,500hp. Packard built 14,000 marine engines during the war, three of which went into each of the Navy's 768 PT boats, two astern and one amidships for better service access." http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2006/01/01/hmn_feature17.html MiloMorai (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced information

There was no call to remove information on the use of 100/150 grade fuel by RAF fighters. Why was it removed?Minorhistorian (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ADGB only used 150 grade for a small number of units engaged in anti V1 diver operations in 1944. 2nd TAF did not use it until February 1945, and appearantly they reverted to 100/130 in 1944. Information from Lovesley was contestable by available primary documents. Therefore, misleading information was removed until the details of RAF use can be described more accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurfürst (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Should have read my source material right through; 2 TAF started using 100/150 grade fuel in November 1944 and used it right through to war's end. AGBD fighters may have reverted back to 100/130, although there is evidence of Mustang units still being cleared to use high boost. The 8th AF used fuel from June 1944 but had problems with fouled plugs and started using a new blend, P.E.P, in early 1945. After problems with this fuel 8th AF reverted back to standard 100/150 in March.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The power to weight ratio figures were changed 22 May 2008, but the metric conversions were incorrectly calculated. 1 hp/pound = 1.64398681 KW/Kg. It seems a revision of the figures is necessary. Razzzhead (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems in changing that; charge on McDuff!Minorhistorian (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Monty Berger quote

It's too long, and it has what appear to be quotes within the quoted section. The quoted section goes into painful detail of aircraft crashes. I believe we need only say two crashed on take-off. And are we quoting an author who is quoting Berger? This is unnecessarily confusing. Let's cut the quote format completely and just give Berger a sentence or two. Binksternet (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in Lead

The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were a series of liquid cooled 27 litre (1649 in3) 60° V12 piston aircraft engines built . . .

Granted, my knowledge of English Grammar is for Amercian English, tho I have had some education in Commonwealth English before that. As the Lead sentence is written, I understand the verb-number agreement to be tied to the word "engines" in the first phrase, not "a series". One could say, The Rolls-Royce Merlin was a series . . . , if one prefers, making the noun agreement singular, whatever noun is used. Given that "engines" is mentionted later in the sentence, its use in the first phrase is redundant anyway. I am going to change the wording to that, and hope that any further discussion will continue here rather than in revert edit summaries. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change, it now reads like the other engine articles. I would regard the Merlin as a base type with variants rather than a series, in an article like Pratt & Whitney Wasp which is a series or family (the wording used in the lead there) then plural use would be normal. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to split achieved. - BillCJ (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

• Rationale - I am proposing that we create a variant article for the Packard V-1650 as a split from this page. Although there were not really any major differences between British and American Merlins, there were lots of minor ones. There is an awful lot of info on the Packard-built version on the Rolls-Royce Merlin, much of it choppy, poorly written, and contradictory. I think splitting off and rewriting this info using more and definitive sources would help to better streamline the remainder of the Merlin page. While the Meriln page is not at an extreme length, it is at 35 kb, and more info is available in published and online sources nthat could be added. While variant articles on WP are quite common for aircraft, it is much leass so for aero-engine articles. One notable example is the Rolls-Royce Gnome, a licence-built and further developed General Electric T58. - BillCJ (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds a reasonable idea appears to be enough material to support two articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, leaving behind any info on 'Packard Merlins'.
• Oppose -
• Support -I can't see any reason why this can't be done; as BillCJ says the information on the V-1650 is poorly written and contradictory plus there are very few references and little information provided in the bibliography. Minorhistorian (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Jeato" assist on Merlin engines?

My father was a flight engineer on a Lancaster bomber. He told me once about something called "jeato" assist, which had something to do with injecting water or steam into the cylinders of the Merlin engine to boost power (odd as that sounds). I was only a boy when he told me about this. I didn't see a reference to it in the article. Does anybody know about this?99.242.29.129 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't boost power as such, but it is fairly commonly used to prevent detonation at high powers (it's winding up the supercharger boost pressure that actually does the "boosting"). Watch out for confusion with JATO though, which is completely different. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I realize now that through the fog of years I am likely conflating two different stories, because I vaguely remember him mentioning the technique of rocket assisted take-offs, although I am not sure if that was in connection with Lancasters. 99.242.29.129 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Power output conflict

I've noticed in my books and online that some models of the Merlin have multiple listings for their output. For instance, the XX alone has listings for 1250hp, 1260hp, 1280hp, and 1390hp. Should we list all of them, or just the most common? Magus732 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In most engine articles we usually only list one power rating and qualify it with an RPM figure, altitude and boost figures if they are available, some guidance here: Template talk:Pistonspecs. With the Merlin being a 'high profile' engine as such extra information in the specifications section is not uncommon. I can understand the concern, if I am creating a new engine article I try just to use the maximum power output. I might be misunderstanding you slightly, I think you are saying that different references are giving a different power output, in that case we just have to use what we think is the most accurate reference and cite it (the whole specification section of an engine article is usually covered by just one reference for consistency). Just under a month ago we set up a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines where the aim is to improve the engine articles through sensible guidelines. The level of detail in the specification sections of engine articles was touched upon in a recent conversation [5] Feel free to chime in there (or here). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Choosing a reliable power figure is one of the minor headaches in editing articles on aero engines because, as you've noticed, there can be significant differences depending on the source. It becomes even more complicated when dealing with engines equipped with two-stage superchargers, because it would be possible to quote two sets of figures! - thankfully, that isn't needed in Wikipedia; as Nimbus has said, it is usually safe to quote the maximum power rating at xxx height and xxx rpm. The most reliable figures for British aero engines are usually derived from the manufacturers own tests or those of the A&AEE; aviation historians using these figures (eg: Alfred Price, especially in his extensive Spitfire publications) are usually accurate enough for our purposes. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Reliable published references are preferred over websites. At the moment this article on the Merlin uses a lot of information from websites which are not backed up by published references. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that can be improved although I've found mistakes in otherwise reliable books! I think I understand the problem here now looking at the edit history. Magus732 has been correcting power figures in the variants table recently added by User:MilborneOne, I would hold fire on that until he has had a chance to add his reference source (usually covered by a note at the top of the table). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped MilborneOne a line, on looking again the powers given are in a column headed 'Takeoff power' and the figures only disagree by 10-20 hp with a very good Merlin reference that I have, which is a very small discrepancy on a 1,000 hp plus engine. Maximum power of a Merlin can be 200-300 hp more than the takeoff rating which could be causing confusion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did add my sources to the reference list in the bibliography. They're the last 2 listings there. I've noticed, though, that there are conflicts inside the books themselves, so I try to only put in listings that I verify using another source (ie the other book listed). And from what I understand, the power listings for take-off are usually higher than the normal running power.Magus732 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I will add the reference for the variant table I added later today when I am at home, it was from one of the Janes reprints. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely with a two-speed supercharger, there are two maximum-power/altitude combinations both being highly relevant to the performance of an aircraft and both must be quoted to avoid being misleading. Man with two legs (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Alec Lumsden in his excellent British Piston engines and their Aircraft gives five power ratings for something over 120 variants of the Merlin taking up five A4 pages of his book. The question is how much of this information is desirable to add to this article before it becomes unencyclopedic or how little information (and what information exactly) should there be? There is an option to split the variants into their own article such as Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, if this was done I think it would be one of the first aircraft engine articles to be split, I would rather keep the variants section of this article in a summarised form personally. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The variants section of the Rolls-Royce Griffon [6] gives an at 'a glance' comparison of the major variants including the power increase from first to last variant, again it is my personal view but I prefer to see something more this length and along these lines in the variants sections. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In general any power figures quoted are simply snapshots representing the potential output of an engine, under certain conditions; most books are content with providing one maximum power figure for engines with two stage superchargers, and it would be better for most Wikipedia purposes to follow suit. I have attempted to explain why two sets of figures could, theoretically, be quoted in Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament; would it be worth adding this information to this article on the Merlin BTW - with the proviso that it could do with some re-writing? Minorhistorian (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a question better brought up at WT:AIRENG although the editors there are not necessarily engine 'experts'. With use of the right wikilinks (if they exist) some explanations can be better clarified elsewhere which keeps the length of text down. A peer review for this article might be useful for this start class article, I am a little concerned that it is becoming untidy presumably due to its popularity and input from many editors with different ideas, the variants table could have been covered by one single reference for instance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to say there was if a link like Supercharger#Aircraft was included it would avoid the need for further explanation in the article (noting that the text in that link is unreferenced), that could be split into an aircraft supercharger article in time. There is just too much to do! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is two speeds that leads to two power figures rather than two stages because of the difference in power consumed by the supercharger itself at the two speeds.

I think that there is a lot of sloppiness in reporting specifications of WW2 aircraft made worse by the large number of variations and I would prefer not to fall into the same trap. You cannot convey the performance of the Merlin 61 with a single power figure without making comparisons with other engines misleading. With these engines, the altitude at which the engine could deliver power was fully as important as the amount of power. In this article, I would favour having just two or three notable examples of the engine described with clear and complete sets of power/altitude combinations: one or two depending on the supercharger (and more if for some reason there were more). Man with two legs (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In this article there are two sets of specifications which is non-standard for the project, ignoring that for the moment the second set of specifications does contain five power ratings with the conditions given. The only WWII featured aircraft article I know of is the B-17 Flying Fortress where the specific variant of engine used by the specific variant of the aircraft gives only one power rating in the 'specs' section which is normal. On clicking the engine link more is revealed of course. It is difficult to achieve a balance between too much and not enough information sometimes, there are many engine articles with very obviously not enough information which is where I spend most of my editing time. I had some hope of submitting the Merlin article for a GA or FA review, aware that many editors might be using it as an example of how an engine article should appear, maybe that will happen in the near future. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"At least two cars..."

I took out the bit about some cars having Merlin engines. Over at the Rolls-Royce Merlin alternative uses page, the three listed cars each lack proof of notability. One supposedly made the Guinness World Book of Records but was carrying a Meteor engine at the time, according to this archived webpage about it. I just can't see how the engine's use in three custom cars has more than minor relevance to the Merlin. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the cars don't exist, then I suggest you tag that article for deletion. As to "minor", then of course it's minor, but we do minor - that's not the same as non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe they exist. I exist, yet I'm not notable enough to have an article mention me. If any of the cars achieved fame or notoriety with a Merlin under the bonnet, then that would be enough for this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability has a (local) definition. The two British cars (I can't speak for the Chev) meet this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability on WP must be asserted by reliable sources, as Binkster first pointed out. Once sources proving notability have been added to the relevant article, then we can decide if they are notable enough to mention here by name. As long as the sub-page on other uses exists though, there is no real need to say "At least two cars" - that really adds nothing substantial. On the other hand, going in depth on what the cars are in this article would defeat the purpose for the sub-page, which was to limit this article to aircraft. - BillCJ (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing wrong in a line that states that a few Merlins found uses in boats and cars, with a link to the alt use article. Since that is all that article covers, the link at the top of the section could be removed. - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've now gone from an article with references, to deleting any mention of the cars, to de-linking the article altogether. That really improves the encyclopedia. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)