Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
So youre saying that US airplanes had a post production test flight and british plane had none?

Shouldnt we include the ferry flight to what ever base?

And what does this have to do with the production of an aircraft. This is post production stuff. It falls under the catagory of "post production and first assignment"
 
syscom3 said:
So youre saying that US airplanes had a post production test flight and british plane had none?
Click to expand...
I can't answer that - I didn't work around many Brits that worked production flight lines in WW2, but I would guess they would of done at least one test flight after production
syscom3 said:
Shouldnt we include the ferry flight to what ever base?
Click to expand...
No - if you had a problem you wanted it identified and corrected as close as possible to the plant. During the test flight there were specific things done to the aircraft (Stalls, slow flight, raising and lowering landing gear etc.) thatr you wouldn't want to do enroute to a base...
syscom3 said:
And what does this have to do with the production of an aircraft. This is post production stuff. It falls under the catagory of "post production and first assignment"
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with production - there is a 60 year old government form callled a DD-250, when that form is completed the contractor gets paid and that happens at delivery -

If an aircraft goes out on a test flight and comes back with "squawks" they have to get fixed before the government accepts the aircraft - 1943 or 2006, it's still the same....
 
Im referring not to defects in production that is required to be fixed by the contractor, but to govt OK to procede with the shipment of the airplane even if it has items that need to be installed at a later date (such as turrets).
 
You will not be suprised to know that the RAF did test fly new aircraft before they were delivered. It was one of the assignments that pilots could be given whe 'resting' between tours.

Some rest
 
yes indeed lancasters were given a post production test flight, in this they had a pilot and flight engineer and they tested at various boosts, speeds, revs and it was recommended that all aircraft be dived to 360mph along with feathering all props, testing the bomb doors, vacuum pump, undercarage and all controlls, i have a copy of the letter signed by H. Brown, Avro's chief test pilot, dated 29/1/43 given to all test facilities telling them what to do..........
 
syscom3 said:
Im referring not to defects in production that is required to be fixed by the contractor, but to govt OK to procede with the shipment of the airplane even if it has items that need to be installed at a later date (such as turrets).
Click to expand...

Agree, and in some cases turrets were GFE....
 

BINGO!
 
it is also worthy of note that of ALL the lancasters produced, only one was lost on these pre-production test flights, PB579, when the Avro test pilot Sid Gleave put the aircraft into a steap dive and was approaching 360mph when a pannel on the wing broke off, hitting the elevators making them ineffective, the flight engineer harry Barnes was also killed, that's not too bad going...............
 
Interesting! I know there were many aircraft lost around Southern California during the war years. Within about a hundred mile radius, you had Lockheed, Douglas, North American, Northrop, Vultee, and further south Consolidated, all pumping aircraft out like there was no tomorrow. In addition there were mod centers, at least 3 that I'm aware of - a lot of activity and a lot chances for something to go wrong....
 
All aircraft recieve acceptance test flights from the service before they are delivered. It is still the case today.

Syscom what do you not understand about how a plane is built. Why do you think it is so easy? Take it from people like myself and FBJ who actually work with aircraft. It is not your Chevy Silverado. It is more complex. It does not take 1 hour to build a B-24! It may take 1 hour to put the subassy together, but that I really doubt also. They just ran out the doors every hour. It took more like 3 weeks or more to actually build a B-24. Get over it! Jesus Christ! Is it so simple that you can not understand it.
 
If a factory delivers 24 airplanes in one day, then its takes one hour to build that plane.

Who cares how much time it takes ot build a sub assembly, cause its the final product that counts.
 
syscom3 said:
If a factory delivers 24 airplanes in one day, then its takes one hour to build that plane.

Who cares how much time it takes ot build a sub assembly, cause its the final product that counts.
Click to expand...

Beacuse without a sub assembly (ie. vertical stabilizer, propeller, aileron) the plane ain't going anywhere and it's the total manhours that go into the aircraft (including flinal assembly) that actually determine the actually manhours it takes to build an aircraft...
 
In 1943 comparative stability arrived. Plant expansion had taken place, material shortages were eased, and management had adjusted to quantity orders, subcontracting, licensing, line production, and large organizations. Designs could now be reasonably standardized, and 87 percent of the production from 1940 to 1944 was of only nineteen models. Plant layouts were changed to eliminate backtracking of components, and assembly lines were instituted: production was scheduled and controlled to produce the continuous, smooth processes necessary for quantity production; tool engineering was centralized, and manufacturing information was organized and coordinated even between companies. The automobile industry became a partner and contributed greatly to the use of line-production techniques. An example of their contribution is in B-24 fuselage fabrication: where Convair had assembled a shell and then installed equipment, Ford formed two half-shells, installed the equipment, and then united them. Since production becomes increasingly difficult as a product becomes more dense, a trend which has been characteristic of aircraft design, this simple improvement was an important one. The usefulness of the automobile industry was greater in this period of wartime equilibrium than it was at earlier or later stages, for the car manufacturers' system emphasized elaborate and time-consuming tooling, which must have long production runs of fixed designs to be economical.
Rough spots remained. Spare parts were not ordered in a way to minimize the disruption of production. Labor turnover, shortages, and absenteeism were a problem. The aircraft industry recruited women, the aged, the disabled, high school boys, farmers, and workers from service businesses such as automobile salesmen for the labor force, but this did not relieve a shortage of skilled workers. For too long Convair was unable to make the transition to quantity production, and had a midwar reorganization of its management. The conflict between quantity production and design change was not fully resolved in any company. A compromise solution attempted to make the best of the situation: factory design changes were introduced less often than required for combat, safety, or efficiency, and finished aircraft were then reworked in a "modification center." In another kind of change, bigger bombers and transports continued to claim increasing emphasis through 1945.

http://www.generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter1.html
 
AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION MANHOURS

B-29
At the end of the war Boeing-Wichita was producing 4.2 Superfortresses per working day for an average of 100 a month, which was the army's schedule, and had reduced the number of manhours from 157,000, the average required for the first 100 bombers, to less than 20,000. Of the 3,888 Superfortresses built by all factories, 1,644 were Wichita made.

B-24
In 1940, the man-hours required to build one B-24 would build fourteen Liberators by 1943. By 1944, the production lines at San Diego and at the Ford, Willow Run facility was turning out a completed B-24 every hour! Over 8,000 Liberators, almost one-half of total production, were built in San Diego alone. By 1944, the Consolidated-Vultee payroll alone included more than 101,000 workers in ten states, operating 13 manufacturing, modification, research, and operating divisions.

The enormous accomplishment of the men and women from Willow Run can only be appreciated when one fully realizes that in 1941, before Ford entered the aircraft industry, it required 201,826 man-hours to manufacture a single B-24 bomber. In March 1944, Ford's procedures of mass production had reduced those man-hours to only 17,357.

BRITISH

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-4.html#fn89

As early as January 1940 when the first wartime programme embodying the heavy bombers was settled, it was reckoned that ratios of weight to man-hours would, for the principal types, work out as follows:

Airframe structure weight
Average man-hours thousands
lb. structure weight per 1,000 man-hours


1940 Statistics


FIGHTERS
lb.
thousands


Spitfire
2,055
15.2
135

Hurricane
2,468
10.3
240

Whirlwind
3,461
26.6
130

Tornado
3,600
15.5
233

BOMBERS

Battle
4,466
24
186

Whitley
9,557
52
184

Wellington
10,117
38
266

Manchester
15,650
52.1
300

Halifax
16,157
76
213

Stirling
26,630
75
314

Perhaps Lanc has numbers on the Lancaster as this was 1940 only, I'm sure these numbers went down substancially by the end of the war.
 
And since the Lancaster and Manchester are similar I am sure the man hours are the pretty equal to one another.

Good post there FBJ, somehow though I think that this is still not eneogh for him.
 
I'm still searching for production man hour data on the B-17.

I think what could be said here (and I think I'm repeating myself) is the B-24 was built in superior numbers based on automotive production methodology. It was no easier or no harder to build than any of its contemporaries and although one rolled out the door "every hour" it still took 17,357 man hours to build one. The B-24 was built at 5 plants and required several mod centers to really complete them. In comparison the B-17 was built in 3 locations (and still probably had mod center activity after the aircraft rolled). In essence the "ease of manufacturing argument" is a mute point however I would love to see 1944 production man-hour figures on the Lancaster and B-17 and put this to bed once and for all. Just note - in the text I posted it was noted that a B-29 (larger and more complex than any aircraft we've been discussing) was being built in "under 20,000" by the Boeing Wichita plant by wars end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Locked
Attempted assassination of Trump.
Replies
2
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Dana Bell
D
Server Maintenance :: February 28th, 6:30AM EST (UTC -5)
Replies
6
Views
3K
Gnomey
Server Update :: 10-30-17 - Post any issues
Replies
16
Views
3K
ARTESH
B
move on +3
Replies
1
Views
2K
blobs
B
Menu
Log in
Register