Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.

There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.

No they do not prove that the B-24 was easier to build, nor do they prove that they only took one hour to build. One was coming off the assy. line every hour, not being built in an hour. Trust me it takes longer than an hour to install the damn landing gear on the thing.

Take it from someone who works on aircraft. It takes longer to inspect an aircraft than you actually think it takes to build them. It took about 30 day s to build a B-24, but one was rolling off the assy line every hour.

If you think you can build a B-24 in 60 minutes then you really dont know anything about aircraft and how they are put together.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no, all the canadian lancs were produced during the war, and they had to be pretty easy to make if the canadians could make them

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.

NO - the facility had 4 times the amount of people...

There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.

And again you're wrong - I would guess at least 15 if not 30 days with all the sub assemblies - from the time the first metal chip was cut till the thing went out the door!!!!!

Here's the willow run site- it's explaining JIT principles - final assembly took 1 hour = that's with all the major subs available. - factor in all the subs and their time.....

http://www.strategosinc.com/willow_run.htm

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He does not get it FBJ.

 

[Dogwalker]

Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.

Yes, and how many 2nd pilots of two-pilots bombers fell down uselessy when their planes were hit in the engines, bomb bays, fuel tanks, structures, flying controls, or every vital part of the plane other than the 1st pilot?
Could had been better if these guys were piloting another plane in that moment?
80 Kg of inexpensive additional armour to protect the pilot alone, works better or worse than 80 Kg of expensive additional pilot?
These are exactly the terms of the problem.

DogW

 

[Glider]

Glider wrote:

WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW?

Syscom replied
Simple answer to you. Because the US didnt begin the air force buildup (USAAF and USN) untill 1941. And congress wasnt going to allocate money for all those factories untill we actually were at war. Plus there were unique propblems on the macro-economics level that had to be overcome. First, we (the US) is a almost a continental in size unlike the UK which is a small island of sorts. Factories had to be built across the nation for military and political reasons which tended to slow things down for construction. Second, huge numbers of people had to be recruited to build the plants, let alone the aircraft. Housing and transportation for them had to be arranged or built for them.

Many times production suffered at first because enough skilled workers were not present Once the buildings and workers were in place then production ramped up.

Then, of course we were also building the B17 at the same time as the B24. That took production capacity away from the B24. Add the workload for Boeing and Convair associated with the B29, B32 and B36, and its amazing we could have even built a couple of the new factories for the
B24.

So if youre saying why we were so slow? Because there were bonafide reasons why production didnt ramp up untill 1943.
_________________
I knew he would take the bait and thanks to the others who I was pretty sure wouldn't

 

[Glider]

Sorry Syscom but I couldn't resist it.

However you didn't comment on the rest of the posting which were good reasons why the USA should be able to produce more bombers.

As for the other comments we obviously had to build factories, train and house people to work in those factories, find funding when we were to all purposes bankrupt.

We were also building Halifax's as well as the Lanc whjich is a match for the B17 and the B24 plus to a degree we also were building Sterlings another plane in a similar catagory.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And with that limited production, the British were building Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mossies, and other aircraft in there limited number of factories and the whole time being bombed, which was something the US did not have to worry about. The US had more abundance of raw materials and way more factories.

None of these argruments that syscom has put foward proves that a B-24 was easier to build than a Lancaster.

 

[syscom3]

And with that limited production, the British were building Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mossies, and other aircraft in there limited number of factories and the whole time being bombed, which was something the US did not have to worry about. The US had more abundance of raw materials and way more factories.

None of these argruments that syscom has put foward proves that a B-24 was easier to build than a Lancaster.

Untill someones posts some factory production times, then the B24 wins cause theres data for it.

And remember, Canada was not being bombed and there was plenty of US personell to help build the commonwealth aircraft.

 

[syscom3]

...
As for the other comments we obviously had to build factories, train and house people to work in those factories, find funding when we were to all purposes bankrupt.

We were also building Halifax's as well as the Lanc whjich is a match for the B17 and the B24 plus to a degree we also were building Sterlings another plane in a similar catagory.

You had a 2 to 3 year head start on us.

And while you were working on the same old airplanes, we were working on next generation of aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.

Yes, and how many 2nd pilots of two-pilots bombers fell down uselessy when their planes were hit in the engines, bomb bays, fuel tanks, structures, flying controls, or every vital part of the plane other than the 1st pilot?
Could had been better if these guys were piloting another plane in that moment?DogW

Most of the pilot losses during WW2 for all sides wasn't even in combat, it was during training and many of those training losses were due to the aircraft impacting the terrain while under IMC....

 

[syscom3]

IMC?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Although overshadowed by the B-17 Flying Fortress, the Liberator had a number of virtues that made it a much more sought after bomber: It was fast (300 mph at 30,000 feet), capable of carrying 8000 LB of bombs, and had an operational range of approximately 2290 miles.

The prototype XB-24 flew in 12/39 and the first deliveries were made 1941 to the RAF. It's worth was soon realized when it served as a reconnaissance aircraft, submarine bomber, VIP transport, and ferried pilots and personnel across the North Atlantic. Heavily armed and possessing long range, the Mighty B-24 Liberator helped the Allies to take and maintain control of the vital sealanes.
Liberators dropped more than 635,000 tons of bombs on Europe, Africa. and the Pacific and shot down 4,189 enemy aircraft. In combat the B-24 tended to burn more easily than the B-17, and when damaged, was inclined to break up during a wheels-up landing.

This was due to its very complex construction: In particular, the wing was relatively weak and in many cases, if hit in the crucial places, it gave away completely. Photographic records of WWII show B-24s plummeting from the sky with their two wings folded upwards like those of a butterfly."

MORE..

"First, break the plane's design into essential units and make a separate production layout for each unit. Next, build as many units as are required, then deliver each unit in its proper sequence to the assembly line to make one whole unit~ finished plane.

To house all this and provide for efficient operation there should be a new plant specially designed to accommodate the progressive layout. I saw no impossibility in such an idea even though mass production of anything approaching the size and complexity of a B-24 never had been attempted before.

But who would accept such a wild notion? And instead of one bomber a day by the prevailing method I saw the possibility of one B-24 an hour by mass production assembly lines. How could the aviation people take that estimate seriously?

As soon as I returned to my room at the Coronado Hotel, I began figuring how to adapt Ford assembly methods to airplane construction and turn out one four-engine bomber an hour."

NOTE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!! "Next, build as many units as are required, then deliver each unit in its proper sequence to the assembly line to make one whole unit~ finished plane."

That meant all the sub assemblies were previously built somewhere else and it took TIME TO ASSEMBLE THEM - Sorrenson's breakthrough was sequencing them so final assembly could be done between 60 and 90 minutes - it still took several weeks to stage this!!!!!

And even then, because of the "Automotive Production Line" environment, there wasn't enough time to implement production changes so mod centers had to be set up to actually "finish" the bomber!

SO ASK YOURSELF - IS THE BOMBER REALLY COMPLETED IF IT HAS TO GO TO A MOD CENTER BECAUSE THE PRODUCTION LINE CAN'T SUPPORT ENGINEERING CHANGES!!!!!

"As might have been expected, the production pool system did cause lots of problems with standardization of components and equipment. Variants coming from the various members of the pool would often have significant detail differences from each other, leading to a spare parts and interchangeability nightmare. There were often significant differences between the various production blocks of the same model Liberator and sometimes differences even WITHIN a production block. Parts for Liberators built at different factories were often not interchangeable with each other, and all four factories involved in primary manufacturing produced Liberators of similar variants but of vastly different detail specification. Even the two Consolidated plants suffered from this problem.

With the introduction of the B-24J, all five members of the pool (both primary manufacturers and sub-assemblers) converted to the production of this version.

Since Liberator production rates were extremely high, it became difficult to introduce changes dictated by field experience onto the production line in a timely fashion. Consequently, newly-constructed Liberators were often already obsolescent as soon as they rolled off the line. For this reasons, a series of modification centers were established for the incorporation of these changes into new Liberators following their manufacture. There were seven known modification centers: Consolidated/Fort Worth, Oklahoma City Air Materiel Center, Tucson Modification Center, Birmingham Depot, Northwest Airlines Depot, Martin-Omaha, and Hawaiian Air Depot. "

To further this, here's a great shot of a B-24 wing - this wing was probably assembled in a jig, leading edge down with clamps and tooling holes keeping it in place. Long "planks" of skin was riveted to the ribs and with a corrugation sandwich between them - this is not an operation where a 50 foot structure that could take one day to complete - even if you throw 20 men on the assembly, they would just wind up getting in each others way....

Photo from Kalibab Journal
I could tell you that this methodology was the same for the P-3 wing something I am very familiar with. The only difference is instead of using corrugated aluminum, milled 7075 aluminum planks were riveted to the ribs - this was very time consuming and at best time it would take about 2 weeks to complete a set of P-3 wings which were about the same size of a B-24 wing (99 feet as opposed to 110).

I haven't even gotten into the other sub assemblies like the flight station, tailplane and fuel cell installation.....

You tell me if you think this aircraft could be built in a hour from first rivet to final assembly?!?!?

AND HERE'S MORE CONCERNING OTHER PROBLEMS IN SAN DIEGO....

"The nearer a B-24 came to its final assembly the fewer principles of mass production there were as we at Ford had developed and applied over the years. Here was a custom-made plane, put together as a tailor would cut and fit a suit of clothes.

The B-24's final assembly was made out of doors under the bright California sun and on a structural steel fixture. The heat and temperature changes so distorted this fixture that it was impossible to turn out two planes alike without further adjustment. The Consolidated and the Air Force people talked about an order from Ford Motor Company for center and outer wing sections; but it was obvious that if the wing sections had uniform measurements, the way we made parts for automobiles, they would not fit properly under out-of-doors assembly conditions."

 

[Glider]

Changing the approach for a minute as ease of building proves from an operational point next to nothing. The RAF did have another bomber in squadron service in 1945 that was being built for the Tiger force which as far as I can see hasn't been mentioned in any of the postings and adresses all Syscoms comments. It was the Lancaster B mk IV renamed the Lincoln.
Its best to describe this as a Lancaster on Steroids. It was bigger, faster, flew higher, carried 22,000Lb bombs 1,470 miles, was armed with twin .50 in a remote controlled nose turret, twin .50 in the tail, one.50 in the ventral position, twin .50 or twin 20mm in the dorsal turret and had two pilots.
I cannot be bothered to check but I am sure it was more difficult to build than a Lancaster but with some application I am equally sure that we were going to churn them out at least the same rate, as factories were beng set up in Canada as well as Australia and the UK but the war ended first.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

IMC?

"Instrument. meteorological conditions"

 

[Dogwalker]

Most of the pilot losses during WW2 for all sides wasn't even in combat, it was during training and many of those training losses were due to the aircraft impacting the terrain while under IMC....

"one a day in Tampa bay", I know. This is just an example of how many expensive is to train (or "build") an usable combat pilot.

DogW

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And remember, Canada was not being bombed and there was plenty of US personell to help build the commonwealth aircraft.

True but even then a US citizen just couldn't cross the border and work, besides there were plenty of work for US citizens here and those Canadians supporting the war effort were very capable of doing the job needed....

In addition, when you build aircraft (even during a WW2 type environment) you just don't build until your heart's content - there is a number dictated by contract, when that number is reached, you stop building and I'm sure the Canadian Lancaster contract was totally fulfilled....

I could tell you that during my 28 years in aviation, 18 of them has been inside production facilities (Lockheed, Boeing Northrop, Sikorsky, Rohr Industries and McDonnell Douglas [RIP] ) The same amount of sweat that went into building an L-1011 went into the DC-10, each had their hard points as well as their easy ones. Even though we're now talking 50 years later, much of the methodology is still the same expect some sub assemblies can be assembled with computerized riveting machines and we see more composite structures. To say that the B-24 was better built or easier to build than any other plane is just hogwash based on the problems identified in Sorrenson's production line IN FACT what you have is a great example of Quantity vs. Quality and from what was shown here 18,000 plus B-24s were made because Sorrenson basically turned the production line into a "Throw Away" bomber, the same mentality used to produce the model "T"."

 

[syscom3]

I give a point to the Lanc being stronger than the B24.

If a factory can produce 24 planes per day, then its production rate is one per hour. Thats the important thing. Being able to assemble all those sub assemblies to a finished product.

And big deal if they had to go to mod centers. Not only does it give valuable flight hours to the pilots to ferry them around, but a bomber in hand that needs some modifications is worth a million still on the production order yet to fill.

I dont think one aircraft produced by the allies ended not having to go to mod centers before they went into combat. Wasnt there a huge depot in the UK that performed nothing but mods? I think it was called BAD-1?

If anything, the production of the B24's proved that it could be built by the thousands.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And big deal if they had to go to mod centers. Not only does it give valuable flight hours to the pilots to ferry them around, but a bomber in hand that needs some modifications is worth a million still on the production order yet to fill.

Wrong!!! Unless there is GFE (government furnished equipment) such as radios, guns, gunsights, etc. that were unavailable during normal production (which was very common during WW2), the only reason why you need a mod center is to make up for an inability during production - Quality vs. Quantity.

And most of the Ferrying of these aircraft were done by "Service Pilots" or WASPS !!!!!(see photo)

I dont think one aircraft produced by the allies ended not having to go to mod centers before they went into combat. Wasnt there a huge depot in the UK that performed nothing but mods? I think it was called BAD-1?

Yes there were, to install GFE, and other combat related equipment not necessary for the delivery flight over to Europe. Consolidated's Mod centers made up for manufacturing deficiencies based on the "Automotive Type Production Line."

If anything, the production of the B24's proved that it could be built by the thousands.

You could mass produce Noah's Ark if you set up any production line like Sorrenson did - just don't change the basic design.....

 

[syscom3]

I saw a pix this morning of hundreds of AAF pilots at Willow Run waiting to take a B24 "somewhere". When I find it again, I will post it. Plus Willow Run had an mechanics school adjacent to the facility where the recruits could learn first hand how to maintain the bomber. Take care of two things at once. Modify (or fix) the bomber and train the fledgling mechanic.

The WASPS flew some of the bombers around, regular AAF crews ferried others.