By: alertken
- 9th October 2009 at 09:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's all down to pubs. And manual relief.
ZR's pics shoulf frighten any mere human. Now imagine doing that when bad guys are trying to kill you. And when the horny-handed rude mechanical offers the rebuilt brute to P/O Prune as fit to fly, some confidence would be good. So A.M writes Air Technical Publications. In wartime they normally stop at that depth of teardown that RAF expects to do in house. No Major Servicing, no life-renewal full overhaul was expected, so not written. One of the reasons for delay in putting Merlins in Canadair C-4 was just that - to define an "overhaul". Ditto Hercules/Hermes, Centaurus/Ambassador. Civil Certification is dependent on Approved Maintenance Manuals. I do not know to what depth RAF Maintenance Command took Merlins, but it is this discussion that has become confused with RR "not allowing" anything.
By: pagen01
- 9th October 2009 at 10:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AK, I know it's not part of the main text, but I want to tap some of your knowledge.
I will just qoute from my previous post.
'....offered a Wessex by someone within the MoD, however after a while the deal was refused because it was determined that the BS/RR Gnome engines actually still belonged to the manufacturer (RR).
On my recent quest for bang seats, through official channels, it seems that all in service (and some life exed) ejection seats are owned by Martin Baker, and that they always remain responsible for maintaining them in servicable (ie flyable in MoD aircraft) until disposal.'
Post-war, could the engine companies (or indeed any major componant maker)have owned the engines supplied to the Military/MoS etc?
The only way I can see how companies could make money under this arrangement, is on a lease agreement, as aircraft are disposed or sold abroad the engines being sold out of the company (ie RR wouldnt want to own Wessex engines for ever!)
By: Martin Garrett
- 9th October 2009 at 10:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On my recent quest for bang seats, through official channels, it seems that all in service (and some life exed) ejection seats are owned by Martin Baker, and that they always remain responsible for maintaining them in servicable (ie flyable in MoD aircraft) until disposal.')
About 12-18 months ago I went down to Everetts to look at a JP they had on offer. James spent a fair bit of time with us and also showed us the Jaguars they had on site. Im sure that he mentioned the fact that seats were owned by Martin Baker and consequently very hard to get hold of.
By: alertken
- 10th October 2009 at 09:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know of no exception, for MB, or Griffons, or Gnomes, or anything, from buy, rather than lease as the way of MoD procurement. Lessors and their capital-protecting insurers can't factor into their costs the risks of combat. So A330K, VT's Grobs and such are leaseable; C-17s have ceased so to be (we've now bought them) 'cos they boldly go where the lessor would rather not. If you are trying to buy a dynamic device, not a weight of scrap metal, maybe you're bumping against the issue of Repair Authority and/or your source does not care to admit to inadequate records (hours/cycles/mod.state).
By: Creaking Door
- 10th October 2009 at 09:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was *in* one earlier today :)
Just to go completely off-thread but those are some nice ‘Roush’ pistons (and rods?) but clearly the pistons differ considerably (same bore obviously) from the original design.
I presume this is a Merlin that flies in the United States but would a UK Merlin be permitted to fly with such modified pistons?
By: MerlinPete
- 10th October 2009 at 12:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to go completely off-thread but those are some nice ‘Roush’ pistons (and rods?) but clearly the pistons differ considerably (same bore obviously) from the original design.
I presume this is a Merlin that flies in the United States but would a UK Merlin be permitted to fly with such modified pistons?
They are not CAA approved as far as I know, but it could fly on its N-registration for a limited time.
I don`t think those rods are aftermarket, the only alternatives I have come across are Allison V-1710 rods used in Merlins.
I would be interested to know what the differences / advantages are with the Roush pistons.
Pete
New
Posts: 4,796
By: ZRX61
- 10th October 2009 at 16:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those are Roush pistons/rings, but the rods have the *hand engraving* on them which leads me to think they may be RR, not Packard. (altho I may be talking thru my hat about that)
The grey coating on the skirts is graphite, not sure what the greenish coating on the top is.
Here's a close up of the text on the piston:
No one is making Merlin rods yet, but Roush are looking into it ;)
Posts: 2,766
By: spitfireman - 8th October 2009 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many Merlins were pushed over the side of aircraft carriers and some weren't life expired.
RR would have been pi**ed if they owned them, surely??
(attached to airframes of course!)
Posts: 4,796
By: ZRX61 - 9th October 2009 at 05:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was *in* one earlier today :)
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 9th October 2009 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's all down to pubs. And manual relief.
ZR's pics shoulf frighten any mere human. Now imagine doing that when bad guys are trying to kill you. And when the horny-handed rude mechanical offers the rebuilt brute to P/O Prune as fit to fly, some confidence would be good. So A.M writes Air Technical Publications. In wartime they normally stop at that depth of teardown that RAF expects to do in house. No Major Servicing, no life-renewal full overhaul was expected, so not written. One of the reasons for delay in putting Merlins in Canadair C-4 was just that - to define an "overhaul". Ditto Hercules/Hermes, Centaurus/Ambassador. Civil Certification is dependent on Approved Maintenance Manuals. I do not know to what depth RAF Maintenance Command took Merlins, but it is this discussion that has become confused with RR "not allowing" anything.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 9th October 2009 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AK, I know it's not part of the main text, but I want to tap some of your knowledge.
I will just qoute from my previous post.
'....offered a Wessex by someone within the MoD, however after a while the deal was refused because it was determined that the BS/RR Gnome engines actually still belonged to the manufacturer (RR).
On my recent quest for bang seats, through official channels, it seems that all in service (and some life exed) ejection seats are owned by Martin Baker, and that they always remain responsible for maintaining them in servicable (ie flyable in MoD aircraft) until disposal.'
Post-war, could the engine companies (or indeed any major componant maker)have owned the engines supplied to the Military/MoS etc?
The only way I can see how companies could make money under this arrangement, is on a lease agreement, as aircraft are disposed or sold abroad the engines being sold out of the company (ie RR wouldnt want to own Wessex engines for ever!)
Posts: 229
By: Martin Garrett - 9th October 2009 at 10:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About 12-18 months ago I went down to Everetts to look at a JP they had on offer. James spent a fair bit of time with us and also showed us the Jaguars they had on site. Im sure that he mentioned the fact that seats were owned by Martin Baker and consequently very hard to get hold of.
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 10th October 2009 at 09:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know of no exception, for MB, or Griffons, or Gnomes, or anything, from buy, rather than lease as the way of MoD procurement. Lessors and their capital-protecting insurers can't factor into their costs the risks of combat. So A330K, VT's Grobs and such are leaseable; C-17s have ceased so to be (we've now bought them) 'cos they boldly go where the lessor would rather not. If you are trying to buy a dynamic device, not a weight of scrap metal, maybe you're bumping against the issue of Repair Authority and/or your source does not care to admit to inadequate records (hours/cycles/mod.state).
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 10th October 2009 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to go completely off-thread but those are some nice ‘Roush’ pistons (and rods?) but clearly the pistons differ considerably (same bore obviously) from the original design.
I presume this is a Merlin that flies in the United States but would a UK Merlin be permitted to fly with such modified pistons?
Posts: 1,270
By: MerlinPete - 10th October 2009 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They are not CAA approved as far as I know, but it could fly on its N-registration for a limited time.
I don`t think those rods are aftermarket, the only alternatives I have come across are Allison V-1710 rods used in Merlins.
I would be interested to know what the differences / advantages are with the Roush pistons.
Pete
Posts: 4,796
By: ZRX61 - 10th October 2009 at 16:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those are Roush pistons/rings, but the rods have the *hand engraving* on them which leads me to think they may be RR, not Packard. (altho I may be talking thru my hat about that)
The grey coating on the skirts is graphite, not sure what the greenish coating on the top is.
Here's a close up of the text on the piston:
No one is making Merlin rods yet, but Roush are looking into it ;)