Deja Vu

[John Mason]

Andy, I have done it both ways. I found is much quicker with my Ruby to remove the sump and gauze then removed big ends. I then removed the head and block from the crankcase. Assembly was a reverse of strip down. Advantage no removal of bodywork or radiator. Crankcase left in situate. If you do it this way just be carefully to make sure the big end bolts are correctly installed in the rods with the flat part of the head up against the flat on the rod.

John Mason

[Andy Bennett]

Thanks John, I like that compromise process, protects the rods etc and allows insertion of pistons in the bock whilst on the bench but means that block/gearbox stays in place.
yes I definitely like that option.
Andy

[Alan]

I’ve had this feeling of deja vu before

[jansens]

I've been playing with this too lately. I am using Phoenix rods and the big ends won't fit down the bores, you can only install them without the block in place. I've been test fitting the block without rings to check heights and clearances and so on.

On the bench that was easiest as per the green book with the crankcase vertical and the block packed up in height so you can slide it across and onto the pistons. I had to cut a packer to sit on the side of the block between the mounting lug and the core plug so the block was level.

I did try dropping it on vertically but even without rings that was difficult as the pistons and rods flop about (pistons mainly) and it's hard with one pair of hands to line everything up. I don't see how you could do it easily with rings in place by yourself.

And it is all definitely easier with the engine out and sitting on a flat surface at a sensible height.

My job today is to make up some sort of ring compressors so when my silicone base gaskets arrive I can assemble it properly.

Simon

[Ian Williams]

Simon, do not try the green book method once you have the rings fitted, it is not worth the trouble and there is a strong possibility you will damage something, put the rods and pistons into the block and lower it onto the crankcase as an assembly. Call me and I will talk you through the process.

[jansens]

Cool, thanks Ian, I'll give you a call. I thought that might be the best way. The big ends are all just finger tight as I thought I would be taking them apart again.

[Bob Culver]

For anyone curious the Merlin book is not as the title but more a technical history. From what I have read elsewhere some minor errors.
Two points of interest; at one stage trouble was experienced with failure of the magneto drives. Skew gears!
And for those who think they need electronic ignition, a sports coil, and .035 gaps for power, the Merlin has .012” gaps.  (The energy to initiate other than a weak mixture is very little, and Seven owners are now almost as obsessed with power as were RR.)

[Bob Culver]

On reading further it seems on the Schneider trophy plane it was necessary to change a piston. The rules forbade engine removal; the plane was tilted to bring the block vertical. 
Apparently under war service conditions blocks were often changed at the V angle!

(I have sometimes  wondered how the realtively small capacity Merlin competed with rivals. Apparently the Allies had access to fuel of much increased performance rating (extended octane number) enabling higher supercharge pressures.)

Oil consumption at max cruise 10 to 18 pints per hour. ..

[Alan]

consumption at max cruise 10 to 18 pints per hour. ..

A bit like me and Ruairidh, then!

I once went to a talk by Rolls Royce engineer, Walter Hassan. He was speaking of his exploits in the desert with Spitfires. It seems ex- Brooklands race engineers were in demand to tune Merlins, and quite a few horses could be added.