advertisement


BBMF Spitfire crash

Vinny said:
It matters not what size, what colour, or anything else, what the griffon and merlin are, the griffon will have used stacks of experience/data/etc. across the board, from the merlin.
Click to expand...
Of course. Anything else would be stupid. Nobody reinvents the wheel every time they design a new bicycle. The Griffon was a 'clean sheet' design, not a further development of the Merlin, but I'm sure nobody expects that clean-sheet to reinvent everything from scratch. Stop digging, you're wrong on this one, and your contortions to prove you're not, are ridiculous.
 
An early engine, known as the Griffon, but never flown, was tested in 1933. The Merlin was first run in 1933. They are, as SPT says above, different. Developed for different applications. The production Griffon was designed from the outset to be supercharged, and that will have changed much of the design anyway.
 
Bit of an academic argument is it not though Vinny - all engines will have been developed using experience gained from earlier work and engineering surely ?
 
cctaylor said:
The majority of Spitfires were fitted with Merlin's. Albeit in the later marks highly developed versions. The original Merlin produced 1000hp. Final versions in the Spitfire 1800hp. 2000hp was achieved in the version used in the Westland Whirlwind. All of this on the original 27 litre block.
Click to expand...

The discussion on engines is interesting, but I would mention that the Westland Whirlwind fighter was in fact equipped with two RR Peregrine engines. There has been much discussion on whether it "should have" had Merlin's, given some historical criticism of the Whirlwind's performance.

Family history for me again I'm afraid, since my late uncle Tom was CO of 263 Squadron operating Westland Whirlwinds, before moving on to Typhoons. The following link provides some (very) detailed discussion on the topic at the Whirlwind Fighter Project for those who might find such things of interest. https://www.whirlwindfp.org/blog/wh...-real-reason-the-whirlwind-suffered-at-height

Cheers
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
f course. Anything else would be stupid. Nobody reinvents the wheel every time they design a new bicycle. The Griffon was a 'clean sheet' design, not a further development of the Merlin, but I'm sure nobody expects that clean-sheet to reinvent everything from scratch
Click to expand...

It cannot be both - it was either an iterartion of the merlin or it was not.
Each iteration in the RB series was pretty much a "clean sheet" design, but they are the same engine but very different at the same time - just look at the thrust variation for starters. For Trents, the one unique feature is three spools.
The Advance 3 has extra iron-mongery in the turbines, UltraFan also has a planetary gearbox behind the fan and is not a three-spool design as a consequence. Still exssentially all the same engine.

-alan- said:
all engines will have been developed using experience gained from earlier work and engineering surely ?
Click to expand...

Errrrr, I thought was what I have been saying all along..............................................
 
antinchip said:
The discussion on engines is interesting, but I would mention that the Westland Whirlwind fighter was in fact equipped with two RR Peregrine engines. There has been much discussion on whether it "should have" had Merlin's, given some historical criticism of the Whirlwind's performance.

Family history for me again I'm afraid, since my late uncle Tom was CO of 263 Squadron operating Westland Whirlwinds, before moving on to Typhoons. The following link provides some (very) detailed discussion on the topic at the Whirlwind Fighter Project for those who might find such things of interest. https://www.whirlwindfp.org/blog/wh...-real-reason-the-whirlwind-suffered-at-height

Cheers
Click to expand...
I have heard that about the Westland Whirlwind but I think Merlins were in high demand for Spitfires, Hurricanes Lancasters and Mosquitos so Westland were low priority, of course later many Merlins were made under license in the US.
 
Vinny said:
It cannot be both - it was either an iteration of the merlin or it was not.
Click to expand...
What a stupid statement, that seems to show you're not listening. Everybody but you, is saying it's not an iteration of the Merlin. You're saying it was an iteration of the Merlin because it will inevitably have used some of the technical knowhow learned during development of the various versions of the Merlin. That's like saying the Vulcan is an iteration of the Lancaster because it came from the same factory, and they both have wings.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
What a stupid statement, that seems to show you're not listening. Everybody but you, is saying it's not an iteration of the Merlin. You're saying it was an iteration of the Merlin because it will inevitably have used some of the technical knowhow learned during development of the various versions of the Merlin. That's like saying the Vulcan is an iteration of the Lancaster because it came from the same factory, and they both have wings.
Click to expand...

And four engines.
And a cockpit.
And a bomb bay.

I think what sometimes happens is that someone has said these sorts of things as fact to people who either didn’t know better or really didn’t care. Then, when someone points out that what they’ve said isn’t quite true, it’s like their whole past is being revealed as fake.

Vinny, it’s not like that at all, and it’s a very common assumption. But not fact.
 
Last edited:
Vinny said:
And this is exactly where it becomes glaringly obvious who have never worked in manufacturing industry or R&D.......................................
Invent once, use many. You build upon established knowledge and data.

The new RR engine, currently called UltraFan, was built based on knowledge gained from the Advance 3, which was built upon knowledge gained through the various Trent Engines from the 700 to the XWB, which were built upon knowledge gained through the progression of Trents and from the RB211 (which was what bust RR, before they were taken into public ownership) - all Trent engines actually have an RB designation within RR (RB - Rootes Barnoldswick - pronounced Barlick and originally a Rootes (a car company) plant).

It matters not what size, what colour, or anything else, what the griffon and merlin are, the griffon will have used stacks of experience/data/etc. across the board, from the merlin.
Click to expand...
(Goalpost dragged across the pitch alert. Please leave the RB Trent etc. out of a discussion which was about Spitfires and now seems to be about their engines, Merlin and Griffon.)

As for your assertion of superior knowledge, I've probably spent at least as much time in manufacturing industry as you have, and participated in the generation and development of many product platforms. So I am familiar with products, product platforms, with building on previous generations of product, squeezing more out of an old product family and recognizing when you can't do that anymore and the time has come to allocate resources to a different product family. I also know your previous assertion (post #127) that a Griffon is a re-badged Merlin is incorrect, for reasons already explained to you. Your last paragraph: yes, both are successful lines of aircraft engines built by the same company, using that company's accumulated know-how, using pistons, compressors etc. Doesn't make them the same product family.
 
Vinny said:
If you read this, the merlin and griffon were parallel derivatives of the kestrel engine.

The Merlin and Griffon Engines

dingeraviation.net dingeraviation.net
Click to expand...
More goal post shifting. The fact that both Griffon and Merlin product families can ultimately be traced to a common ancestor doesn't make them the same species, in much the same way as tigers and cheetahs are two different groups of animals.
 
Firstly can I correct yesterday's mistake (brain fade due a summer cold), the 2000hp Merlins were for the De Havilland Hornet of which Capt Eric "Winkle" Brown spoke highly. I should really have known better.



There is an excellent article here on the Griffon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Griffon

It goes into considerable detail on the differences in design and construction. In many ways the Griffon was a better engine, but rather than divert development and manufacturing resources the Merlin was favoured. The Griffon was sidelined while they developed the ill-fated 24 cylinder Vulture which powered the Avro Manchester. The Manchester of course became the Lancaster by dint of replacing 2 Vultures with 4 Merlin's.

There is absolutely no connection between the Merlin and Griffon other than that they were made by Rolls Royce and were V12s. They are not easily interchanged on any aircraft.

There's no reason for BBMF to re-engine their fleet. There is a far greater support network for Merlins. There are very few Griffons flying these days. The last Griffon left the factory in 1955.
 
Bob McC said:
What’s incredible is that it was only ten years from the specification in 1937 of the failed two engined Avro Manchester that evolved into the four engined Lancaster that first flew in 1941 to the 1947 specification that resulted in the Vulcan.
Click to expand...

The whole evolution thing got a kick up the bum with a bit of a game-changer in 1945.

both-1-thumb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top