Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

syscom3 · Jan 5, 2006

Well, considering the huge number of b24's that were accepted, the quality issues were not considred a big deal. Gen Marshall and Gen Arnold were not dummy's. If the B24's quality issue was considered a "show stopper" they would have fixed the problem right away.

And there were plenty of non combat roles for any B24 that rolled of the assembly line that could not have been modified economically for front line use. ilots and mechanics needed to be trained, so the training commands could use them. Transports were always in demand so they could get some. Even the sub hunters could use them as all they needed to do was lug some depth charges.

The production of the B24 deserves accolades and brings credit to consolidated for designing a bomber that was so adaptable for mass production.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 5, 2006

syscom3 said:
The production of the B24 deserves accolades and brings credit to consolidated for designing a bomber that was so adaptable for mass production.

To produce 18,000 bombers accolades are deserved, but it wasn't the design of the bomber that accomplished this, the B-24 was rapidly designed which was evident by many "shortcuts" inherent in its appearance - as shown it was Sorrenson designing a production facility around the bomber that allowed this to happen - the B-24 went together basically the same way as the Lancaster or the B-17 - any other large aircraft could of been subjected to these production numbers if given the same opportunity....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 5, 2006

I agree. If the Lancaster had been built in the US I am sure the production numbers would have been higher. Not because the the British were not good eneogh but just because the US capacity was larger.

MP-Willow · Jan 6, 2006

The B-24 production was crazy, but then look at the total production of US industry and you get an idea of what we put out. The US produced all the C-47 and C-53 aircraft, it was producing for all The Soviets, and others as for its self. It had to take a very poorly educated population and train them to fight, and weld.

Also all those factories had the unplesent habbit of strikes, like Willow Run had that slowed it all down.

As for German fighters bf-109 numbers did rise latter in the war, and in all built 34,000 or so.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 6, 2006

fact is production numbers aren't really gonna prove anything, this all started when sys said the B-24 was easier to build, ever since we've been trying to tell them they were pretty much the same and anything can be mass produced................

syscom3 · Jan 6, 2006

You dont have any monthly production numbers. I do. untill you can prove that the Lanc was built faster, the B24 wins this catagory.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

syscom3 said:
You dont have any monthly production numbers. I do. untill you can prove that the Lanc was built faster, the B24 wins this catagory.

Wins what?

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 6, 2006

actually i do have monthly production figures, some of which i have actually posted and they prove that yes, the B-24 was coming out the doors faster, that does NOT prove that she was easier to build, and it's unlikely you're ever going to prove that so just give it a break......

syscom3 · Jan 6, 2006

I didnt see anything about monthly production numbers for the lanc. repost it so i can check it out.

Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 6, 2006

it's late so i wont post them now, but

Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft

the figures you've posted, primarily the "one an hour" is not the time it takes to BUILD an aircraft, it's the time to ASSEMBLE part from sub assemblies, you haven't proved how long it takes to build at all.........

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

syscom3 said:
I didnt see anything about monthly production numbers for the lanc. repost it so i can check it out.

Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft.

There's nothing simple or complex about B-24 OR Lancaster construction - All right the Lancaster was slightly larger than the B-24, but I bet you could swap assemblers from either factory and they'll perform just as well

wmaxt · Jan 6, 2006

the lancaster kicks ass said:
it's late so i wont post them now, but

Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft

Click to expand...

the figures you've posted, primarily the "one an hour" is not the time it takes to BUILD an aircraft, it's the time to ASSEMBLE part from sub assemblies, you haven't proved how long it takes to build at all.........

The fact that an aircraft is delivered each hour has nothing to do with the actual build time, which may be closer to 3 weeks on various sub assembly lines.

The car plant, I helped change over to a new model, turned out a car every 60 seconds on each of two production lines. The reality though was 4 hours stamping, 8 hours assembly/welding, 8 hours paint, 8 hours interior trim/wiring, 12 hours drivetrain/misc or 40 hours in just final assembly. The subassemblies like seats, engines, transmissions, instruments even carpets (molding and attaching insulation) are all done off site and take another 5min to 4 hours each to assemble before being sent to the assembly plant. An aircraft is 100 times more complex and intricate as well as the numbers of indivdual parts assembled, each with hundreds of rivets.

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

wmaxt said:
The fact that an aircraft is delivered each hour has nothing to do with the actual build time, which may be closer to 3 weeks on various sub assembly lines.

The car plant, I helped change over to a new model, turned out a car every 60 seconds on each of two production lines. The reality though was 4 hours stamping, 8 hours assembly/welding, 8 hours paint, 8 hours interior trim/wiring, 12 hours drivetrain/misc or 40 hours in just final assembly. The subassemblies like seats, engines, transmissions, instruments even carpets (molding and attaching insulation) are all done off site and take another 5min to 4 hours each to assemble before being sent to the assembly plant. An aircraft is 100 times more complex and intricate as well as the numbers of indivdual parts assembled, each with hundreds of rivets.
wmaxt

Thanks wmaxt - SYSCOM, ARE YOU THERE?!?!

Glider · Jan 6, 2006

Five gets you ten he ducks this

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

Glider said:
Five gets you ten he ducks this

maybe!?

But then again he might say this was built in 20 minutes....

or this

or these

Gnomey · Jan 6, 2006

Or these:

syscom3 · Jan 6, 2006

If the Lanc factory puts out 12 lancs per day, I'd say it was building 1 every two hours.

If the car factory had 1000 cars per day leave the factory, I d say its building them at 41.67 per hours.

Whoc ares how long the sub assemblies take. Its the final prooduct that counts

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

syscom3 said:
If the Lanc factory puts out 12 lancs per day, I'd say it was building 1 every two hours.

If the car factory had 1000 cars per day leave the factory, I d say its building them at 41.67 per hours.

Whoc ares how long the sub assemblies take. Its the final prooduct that counts

If completed - ?!?

And something else to think about - the one an hour number is based on an aircraft rolling out the door - out on the flight line there are a whole bunch of things to do - service it with liquids, make sure there's no fuel leaks, ground runs and production test flights....

syscom3 · Jan 6, 2006

The B24 could be serviced faster as it didnt have liquid cooled engines to worry the ground crews about.

Whats your point about the post production servicing? The planes built, and just needs some gas and oil and a pilot and off it goes.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 6, 2006

syscom3 said:
The B24 could be serviced faster as it didnt have liquid cooled engines to worry the ground crews about.

Don't forget hydraulic fluid, and I'll agree in-line engines = Gylcol.

syscom3 said:
Whats your point about the post production servicing? The planes built, and just needs some gas and oil and a pilot and off it goes.

Get ready here it comes - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!

Even at the height of WW2, EVERY aircraft produced was subject to a least one functional check flight, the goal was one flight to ring things out and then get the aircraft delivered. Larger aircraft also had to go into "fuel soak,: where they would fill the aircraft full of fuel and let it sit at least a day to see if any fuel leaks occured. Additionally all the electrical wiring had to be "wrung out" they were tested for shorts and breaks, again this was accomplished prior to the first flight and still took some time to do.

Go to the site "Wreckchasers," there's several P-38s, Hudsons andf other aircraft around Burbank that crashed during their first production teat flight....

You never jump in a brand new airplane and just "go." Not in 1943 or 2006!

Here's some P-38s that crashed around Burbank during the war during test flights...

Here's a Ventura that Crashed during test flight...

"Local Man Guides Officers to the Site of Bomber Crash
ACTON - 3/2/44 - Four men were killed last Thursday in the crash of a Navy patrol bomber on the upper slopes of Mt. McDill about ten miles west of Palmdale. William Ritter of Palmdale acted as guide to the group of officials who hiked up to the wreckage of the plane, after it had been sighted by a Lockheed test pilot.

Those killed in the crash were George G. Dory, 20, pilot of North Hollywood; Paul T. Sunday, 36, copilot of Beverly Hills; Donald L. Jackson of Roscoe, 30, crew chief; and James P. Sergeant, 30, radioman of Glendale."

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Pacific Historian

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads