Rolls Royce Meteor V 2 engine from a Centurion tank

In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
The Centurions had RR Meteor engines - and if they had only had a common
parts
nomenclature/numbering system, the Aussie could have supplied the Yanks
with
parts!

It was not until the beginning of 1952 that the Australian Army finally
received it's first Centurion tanks. These first tanks were given to 1
Armoured Regiment.

How about the Comet tank - what engine did that have - and did the Aussies use
it - and was it in Korea ??

Comet had the Meteor.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
The Centurions had RR Meteor engines - and if they had only had a
common
parts
nomenclature/numbering system, the Aussie could have supplied the
Yanks
with
parts!

It was not until the beginning of 1952 that the Australian Army finally
received it's first Centurion tanks. These first tanks were given to 1
Armoured Regiment.

How about the Comet tank - what engine did that have - and did the
Aussies use
it - and was it in Korea ??

Comet had the Meteor.

Australia never used the Comet

L'acrobat wrote:

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
The Centurions had RR Meteor engines - and if they had only had a
common
parts
nomenclature/numbering system, the Aussie could have supplied the
Yanks
with
parts!

It was not until the beginning of 1952 that the Australian Army finally
received it's first Centurion tanks. These first tanks were given to 1
Armoured Regiment.

How about the Comet tank - what engine did that have - and did the
Aussies use
it - and was it in Korea ??

Comet had the Meteor.

Australia never used the Comet

OK - some tank regiment somewhere, equipped with some tanks powered by RR Meteor
engines, were stationed in the next valley to an air force squadron of planes
powered by Packard Merlins.

If only they'd known that it was essentially the same engine - they could have
swapped parts and prevented the air force squadron from being grounded due to
lack of spares.

Will that do ??

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
The Centurions had RR Meteor engines - and if they had only had a
common
parts
nomenclature/numbering system, the Aussie could have supplied the
Yanks
with
parts!

It was not until the beginning of 1952 that the Australian Army
finally
received it's first Centurion tanks. These first tanks were given
to 1
Armoured Regiment.

How about the Comet tank - what engine did that have - and did the
Aussies use
it - and was it in Korea ??

Comet had the Meteor.

Australia never used the Comet

OK - some tank regiment somewhere, equipped with some tanks powered by RR
Meteor
engines, were stationed in the next valley to an air force squadron of
planes
powered by Packard Merlins.

If only they'd known that it was essentially the same engine - they could
have
swapped parts and prevented the air force squadron from being grounded due
to
lack of spares.

Will that do ??

Yes thats accurate. but somehow the story lacks the same zing...

In article ,
Ken Duffey writes:
L'acrobat wrote:
Australia never used the Comet

OK - some tank regiment somewhere, equipped with some tanks powered by RR Meteor
engines, were stationed in the next valley to an air force squadron of planes
powered by Packard Merlins.

If only they'd known that it was essentially the same engine - they could have
swapped parts and prevented the air force squadron from being grounded due to
lack of spares.

Will that do ??

Well, now that we've got that sorted out, No, I don't think that it
would help, actually. Well, they may be able to trade Whitworth
Thread bolts, but stuff like Carburetors, and the oterh accessory
stuff would be differnt. (V1650s used Bendix-Stromberg Pressure Carbs,
IIRC, the Meteor uses an SU. The Packard has a differnt back end,
with the wheelcase for the blower on it, and a different front end
with the propeller gearbox. The airplane engine had vacuum pumps,
hydraylic pumps, and a 24V generator all hooked to the engine, and all
of those would be different. Pistons, cranks, & conrods may be
similar in dimension, but given Roll's penchant for sloppy
manufacturing tolerances and hand-fitting parts, I don't know if
Rover, who swapped Whittle Turbojet production to Rolls for the Meteor
plant, improved that particular situation.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
The Centurions had RR Meteor engines - and if they had only had
a
common
parts
nomenclature/numbering system, the Aussie could have supplied
the
Yanks
with
parts!

It was not until the beginning of 1952 that the Australian Army
finally
received it's first Centurion tanks. These first tanks were given
to 1
Armoured Regiment.

How about the Comet tank - what engine did that have - and did the
Aussies use
it - and was it in Korea ??

Comet had the Meteor.

Australia never used the Comet

OK - some tank regiment somewhere, equipped with some tanks powered by
RR
Meteor
engines, were stationed in the next valley to an air force squadron of
planes
powered by Packard Merlins.

If only they'd known that it was essentially the same engine - they
could
have
swapped parts and prevented the air force squadron from being grounded
due
to
lack of spares.

Will that do ??

Yes thats accurate. but somehow the story lacks the same zing...

BTW someone who owns a airworthy Merlin suggested the Meteor engine may
contain steel parts. He didn't elaborate but there was a hint that the block
may be something other than aluminum.

Wasn't the Merlin an inline piston engine and the meteor engine a gas
turbine engine.the two have to be totally dissimilar....mjh

--




"The Raven" wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me how similar these engines were to the Merlin? I know
they
were a derivative but being intended for ground use may be so totally
different as to be useless for any aviation application.

Why do I ask? An acquaintance has just acquired a complete Meteor engine
and
is looking to sell it off. I don't believe he wants to profit from it
beyond
recovering costs. If the engine is valueless or he can't find a buyer
there
is a possibility (slim) it may be scrapped. However, it would be better if
someone would purchase the engine and put it back into one of it's
intended
applications.

If anyone is interested in the engine, even for parts, please post a
response here and I will pass it on to him.

For those interested, the engine is in Canada (despite me being in
Australia).

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"Mike Hide" wrote in message
news:b0jXb.308382$xy6.1503503@attbi_s02...
Wasn't the Merlin an inline piston engine and the meteor engine a gas
turbine engine.the two have to be totally dissimilar....mjh

The Rolls Royce Merlin (including all license built models) was a V12
engine. Used in such aircraft as the Lancaster and P-51 Mustang.

The Rover Meteor engine is a derivative of that engine and saw application
in the Centurion tank.

I think you're associating the name Meteor with the Gloster Meteor jet
aircraft (which had turbines).


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

In article b0jXb.308382$xy6.1503503@attbi_s02,
Mike Hide wrote:
Wasn't the Merlin an inline piston engine and the meteor engine a gas
turbine engine.the two have to be totally dissimilar....mjh

The Rolls-Royce Merlin was a V12 piston engine, as was the (directly
derived from the Merlin) Rover Meteor tank engine.
The Gloster Meteor aeroplane was pwered variously by Rolls-Royce
Welland or Derwent, Halford H1 (De Havilland Goblin) or Metrovick
M2 turbojets or - in one case - Rolls-Royce Trent turboprops.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Mike Hide" wrote in message
news:b0jXb.308382$xy6.1503503@attbi_s02...
Wasn't the Merlin an inline piston engine and the meteor engine a gas
turbine engine.the two have to be totally dissimilar....mjh


You have misunderstood I fear.

The Rolls Royce Meteor was a derivative of the Merlin inline
piston engine abd was used in armoured fighting vehicles

The GLOSTER Meteor used various engines including
Rolls Royce Derwents

Keith