Packard Forum Index » General

Quote: I hear you Tim, but not everybody died in the war; lots of folks came home and LOTS had opinions about it, or at least in my family they sure did!
I find this whole thread interesting because, to me, it kind of becomes an 'apples/oranges thing'. I agree with you that hand built ANYTHING is probably superior to something spit out of a machine, but the real issue here is taking it FROM hand-built TO mass produced and IMO, that is what Packard accomplished greatly. War is a nasty, ugly business and the men and women that fought in those conflicts are to be honoured and never forgotten. As far as the support they got from the US, Britain and Canada to have the munitions and equipment to continue to fight and defeat the enemy, I don't think that can be understated either. Not the least of which would be companies like Packard who came through in spades with some sixty thousand aircraft engines. Kudos and props to every one of them! Chris

Too much Packard mythology going on as regards the airplane engine. Consider the following:

The redeveloped Ford Trafford Park Factory was bombed only a few days after its opening in May 1941.

As Sir Stanley Hooker stated in his autobiography:

" once the great Ford factory at Manchester started production, Merlins came out like shelling peas at the rate of 400 per week. And very good engines they were too, yet never have I seen mention of this massive contribution which the British Ford company made to the build-up of our air forces. "

Merlin Wartime Production Sources

Derby 32,377

Crewe 26,065

Glasgow 23,675

Trafford Park 30,428

Detroit 55,523

I find the whole legend of Rolls-Royce supposed cobblers not being able to produce engines not supported. The two Rolls plants (Bentley and Rolls-Royce cars) alone built more engines than Packard. You can't do that using 18th century production methods.

"The Rolls-Royce Merlin was manufactured under license from Packard. What are the main differences and are the differences noticeable in maintenance tasks?

In terms of construction, the differences are so small that they are not worth mentioning. Excitingly, the biggest and most important difference from a maintenance perspective is the quality of the manuals. Here the British manual clearly loses out to the Packard manual. Be it because of the clarity or the technical information. This shows that Packard dealt actively and intensively with the Merlin, revised it and not simply recreated it. As is well known, the Packards came from assembly lines, while the British units were built from start to finish by individual teams. The British team also knew all the assemblies inside out, but this was not the case with Packard. The American documentary also had to go deeper."

Felix Ohlhoff, aircraft mechanic and Merlin specialist at MeierMotors GmbH.


Quote:
Confirmed, pls see below.


Sources
# 1 (above) - flugrevue.de
# 2 (below) - The Liverpool Echo; July 9, 1940

Attach file:

---

  July 9, 1940 - The Liverpool Echo.jpg (148.38 KB)