Best Fighter III

[Anonymous]

The wings of the P-38 weren't the difficult part, the engine nacelles were. But again, it was being built to a set of specs that was considered virtually impossible. Lockheed had to make compromises (like every designer) to get the performance demanded.

Rouded wingtips, fins and stabalizers all make a plane much more difficult to construct than those involving relatively squared off designs. The nacelles/booms were also difficult to construct, and the curves of the fuselage were difficult as well. There is very little "flat" area to a P-38.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The Lanc was a death trap for the crew compared to the Halli if you were shotdown.
i can see how thats true...

well the halibag wasn't exactily easy to get out of, you had the best chance in a stirling............

 

[Yeomanz]

yes their bomber's were truely amazing...........

they were , but you fail to realise that

 

[KraziKanuK]

What is so hard about curved pieces? That is why there was stamping presses. Old Henry used them to make peices for his Model T.

 

[Anonymous]

What is so hard about curved pieces? That is why there was stamping presses. Old Henry used them to make peices for his Model T.

Fitting peices with multiple curves for airplanes is a lot harder than for cars. For cars, you just splat some lead (or bondo) on the seams and sand it and it's good to go. On planes, the rivet holes have to line up, which means every peice has to fit just so - but lots of variables are involved and in reality they don't - the sheetmetal fitters have to know how to deal with this, sometimes by working the part, sometimes by heating or cooling it, whatever. Squared off parts and relatively flat, or at least single curved, portions of sheet metal made a plane much easier to build. The P-38 involved lots of parts that had two curves stamped into them.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

That is what the various jigs are for after stamping. Engineers spent a lot of time to make sure there was not custom fitting.

One does not 'work' aluminium/dural if you want it to keep its quality.

 

[Anonymous]

That is what the various jigs are for after stamping. Engineers spent a lot of time to make sure there was not custom fitting.

One does not 'work' aluminium/dural if you want it to keep its quality.

And this is why it took a lot more work to put the plane together. A skilled worker had to use those jigs and use other techniques to fit the pieces together. The more complex the curves, the more difficult the job, especially when the plane was using a pre-stressed design.

And they did work the aluminum, they had special tools for warming it up to make it stretch a little easier w/o ripping. They used hammers, peens, etc...

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

"in 1941 the Germans did do a comparison of the building times of the Spitfire I and the Bf 109E-1 as part of a comparison of 3 German and 3 British types of aircraft. The report was entitled "Vergleich deutscher und britischer Kriegsflugzeuge: Inhaltsübersicht" Berlin: 24.4.41. It used actual Bf 109 component creation and assembly times and compared them to the calculation of comparable times for a Spitfire, using German aviation production experts and then-current German aviation technology. Times were for the 1,000th aircraft in series production of the aircraft type. The total production and assembly times for the two aircraft, excluding engine and propeller, were as follows: Spitfire = 5,913 hours, and Bf 109 = 5,895 hours. The difference,1%."

So much for curvy panels.

 

[Anonymous]

How were the Germans able to conduct such a study? It is very suspicous. The British certainly were not making such data available to the Germans!

Only the wing on the Spitfire would have been more difficult to manufacture than that of the 109. The rest of the plane is quite similar in complexity. Niether involve multiple complex curves.

Looking at actual production numbers and dates, it is apparent the Bf109 was probably easier to build than the Spitfire.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

Easily since they had many Spitfires they could examine to see how they were constructed. German engineers were not dummies.

 

[Anonymous]

Easily since they had many Spitfires they could examine to see how they were constructed. German engineers were not dummies.

Which would tell them nothing about production quantities or production rates, only the technology employed.

Also, the Germans didn't have that many captured Spitfires to examine - the British didn't start venturing over German held territory until late 1942 (not counting night missions).

It is well known that the Spitfire wing was difficult to produce and this limited production rates. If the German "experts" estimated the same effort to produce a 109 as to produce a Spitfire, they estimated wrong. They had no experiance with such a wing to compare too.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

The Spitfires were were flying over France and even Holland since 1940. 66 Sqd even losing a Spit over Rotterdam on the 13 May 1940. Around 72 Spits were lost in and around Dunkerque during Operation Dynamo. Rodoes, ramrods, etc were being flown in 1941 over German held France.

The Germans had experience with eliptical wings since the He 112 and Heinkel 111 had them.

 

[Anonymous]

The Spitfires were were flying over France and even Holland since 1940. 66 Sqd even losing a Spit over Rotterdam on the 13 May 1940. Around 72 Spits were lost in and around Dunkerque during Operation Dynamo. Rodoes, ramrods, etc were being flown in 1941 over German held France.

The Germans had experience with eliptical wings since the He 112 and Heinkel 111 had them.

Yes there were a few Spitfires in Europe in 1940. However, those lost in combat do not provide the kind of info gleened from a "captured" unit. I would imagine the Germans probably did manage to nab one, but I'm not sure of that.

The He111 did not have an elipitical wing. As for the He 112, it did... and read for yourself:

Another issue is that the 112 was more complex than the 109, and it's likely that this had at least some effect on the decision making process. The 112's use of complex curves on almost all surfaces required more working of the metal, notably the large number of hard to build 2-d curves. This is also true of the wing, as the elliptical planform was often skipped over due to it's complex construction, even though it is provably the most efficient wing design possible. As a result the 112 was considerably more expensive to build, and this is a major concern for a plane that has to be quickly ordered into mass production.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html

Even your own example disputes you.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i was gonna say the 111 didn't have eliptical wings, just very good looking ones........

 

[evangilder]

The Germas actually flew quite a few Spitfires. There are at least seven that are known and several other possibles. There are pictures of many on different sites on the web. Look into Zirkus Rosarius and you will find several pictures of captured spits.

 

[cheddar cheese]

On the www.luftarchive.de website somewhere there is a picture of a Lufwaffe Spit with a DB engine...

 

[Anonymous]

But how does that make any sense out of the claim that the 109 took about the same effort to construct as the Spitfire? Even their own experiance with elliptical wings in the HE112 found them much harder to manufacture (see my previous post in this thread).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[NightHawk]

I finished my FW-190(low poly).

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

wow pretty good, how long did it take??

 

[cheddar cheese]

Thats well good NH...Just need to get some textures on it and that will look great! 8) Wish I could get the skill like that with my graphics program...