At 10:55 AM 4/22/2008, Scott Hutchinson wrote:
>
>Kinda a semantics issue.
>
>I'm sure the Rolls-Royce guys would say that they were built by
>Packard under licence.
>
>I think Ford was building B-24s. Does that mean that they weren't
>Consolidateds?
These are two completely different
issues. Aircraft designed by one manufacturer
but built by another -- and both Douglas and
North American built B-24's as did Ford -- were
subject to direct inspection by engineers from
the prime contractor and they were not allowed to
vary from the plans supplied by the prime contractor.
The Packard Merlin was substantially derived and
developed from the Rolls Royce original. Yes,
license fees were paid but, in the end, Rolls
Royce adopted some of Packard's amendments to
their design and paid Packard when they adopted
these for the later versions of the engine. One
primary change was the reduction in quality when
Whitworth bolts were replaced by the less capable
UN threads but there were a bunch of other
variations, most adopted to fit the engine to US
production techniques. There were no Rolls Royce
inspectors on the Packard assembly line.
Marc
msmall@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh b`s fir gun ghr`s fir!
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
|