Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "" video.

  1. That's why the video intentionally ignores the earlier versions and states it is only discussing the Merlin equipped versions.
    3
  2.  @kenneth9874  High octane fuel was huge progress, but it was not unique to the Merlin, and its benefits were available to any engine that used it. The Merlin, due to its inherent design, was successfully powering British fighters on 87 or 89 octane before the supply of 100 octane became available, and if 100 octane fuel was never created it would have still been one of the most successful engines of the war. So yeah, get real. You don't really have anything to support your original statement about the U.S. being responsible for the success of the Merlin, and I'm not interested in being distracted by conspiracy theories about Model 332 Lightnings and Martlets, so have a nice day.
    2
  3.  @kenneth9874  Can you be more specific? Other than the American thin-wall bearing technology used under license by Vandervell I can't think of a direct transfer of engine technology to RR that made the Merlin a success. I seem to recall that Packard fitted the V-1650 with a pressure carburetor which was an improvement over Miss Shilling's orifice, but I think most would argue that by then the Merlin was already into its own as a very successful engine. Of what do you speak?
    1
  4.  @kenneth9874  High octane fuel was not specific to the Merlin, and one might argue that it was a Frenchman (Houdry or something like that?) who pioneered the method American companies used to produce the high-octane fuel, but there is no question the Merlin and many other allied engines took advantage of it. I already mentioned the pressure carburetor, which was an improvement, but as I said I think most would say the Merlin was already successful when that improvement was implemented. According to my reading the 2-stage supercharger of the Packard V-1650 was patterned off the one in the Merlin 61. Are you saying the Merlin 61 supercharger was patterned off the F4F's Pratt & Whiney R-1830? That is a claim I have not encountered previously.
    1
  5.  @kenneth9874  Yes, I know it was a pet project of Jimmy Doolittle at Shell. Look deeper into the methods of mass producing the fuel. Not that it matters in the context of making the Merlin a success, because it made all engines that could use more octane more powerful, not just the Merlin. The Merlin would have still been a very competitive engine if all ran on less octane. What about the 2-stage supercharger? Are you saying the Merlin 61 copied that from P&W 1830?
    1
  6.  @kenneth9874  "without American high octane fuel and other technology the merlin would have remained a mediocre under performing loser" That is not a fact, it is your opinion, and it is ignorant. Technology crossed the Atlantic in both directions, both with regard to engines and fuel. And while Packard did indeed make useful improvements to the Merlin, it was never “a loser”. That’s just a dumb inflammatory statement. Your black and white judgments on everything shuts out true understanding. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions floating around in your head. For example, you think the absence of turbosuperchargers on the Model 332 Lightnings the British ordered was due to some sort of nefarious political or legal issue, or perhaps the U.S. didn’t want to share the “secrets” of the turbos. The reality is that the British Purchasing Commission intentionally ordered them that way. But why? The Brits had large qualities of P-40s on order, and they wanted the engines in the 332 to be same, meaning all rotate to the right and not have a turbosupercharger attached. They did not want the logistic complication of a second type of engine. They were also aware that the shortage of turbos was restricting production of U.S. aircraft, and they desperately wanted these aircraft as soon as possible. Furthermore, they did not plan to employ these airplanes in high altitude escort or interception. They were expected to be employed along with the P-40s on order, which were also not high-altitude fighters. This order was placed during the ‘phony war’ prior to the Battle of Britain, when air combat so far had been conducted at low and medium altitude. They had no operational experience with turbos and didn’t want exposure to complications that might interfere with operational readiness. If you don’t believe these facts don’t try to argue with me, just go to Page 45 of Warren Bodie’s book on the P-38 and argue with him. I let you pull me off topic just to demonstrate that your crude opinions have no foundation. With that I am done reasoning with you. Have a nice day and goodbye.
    1