How about a little flip-flop

[Colin1]

Lets not forget that the Germans had extensive R&D capabilities during the war. After all, they invented rocket propulsion and jet propulsion, while inventing stehlhegrantes (stick grenades/potato mashers) and SMGs. The German Werhmact and Luftwaffe were both technologcly advanced ( like the modern US military). They would have been able to design, build, and field a more potent version of the P-38 (or any other Allied plane for that matter!)

Well
I think the Chinese invented rocketry, the Germans merely considered it a viable interceptor propulsion system though I bet one or two Komet drivers disagreed...
Jet propulsion research was ongoing behind the scenes of at least three of the principal combatants of WWII.
Everyone had SMGs, the Sten was an SMG, so was the Thompson, the MP40 and PPSH; the Germans gave us the world's first full-calibre assault rifle in the StG44.
What do you get if you lash a Mills bomb to a stick - a cheaper stick grenade...
Give us a few more details on this 'more potent P-38'

 

[BombTaxi]

The Germans did invent SMGs in the modern sense, and also invented stick grenades - in WWI.

Nor were they the first European users of artillery rockets - the British were using Congreve rockets in the Napoleonic wars. In terms of rocket propulsion for heavier-than-air craft, the Opel RAK-1 flew in 1929 - the principle was established a decade and a half prior to the Me163 seeing service:

Opel RAK.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Colin has pointed out, jet development was ongoing in other countries beside Germany - they were just the first to get jets into the air then into combat. How else would you account for the Meteor going into squadron service before war's end?

While German R&D capacity was indeed prodigious, this doesn't meant that they could have designed a 'better' P-38. As we have discussed several times in this thread, the RLM operated on very different design philosophies to the Allied manufacturers. My argument can be encapsulated in this - if the Germans had needed a 'better' P-38, they would have built one. It wouldn't have looked or performed like a P-38 though - because the requirement that drove P-38 development did not exist within the LW.

 

[Colin1]

The Germans did invent SMGs in the modern sense, and also invented stick grenades - in WWI.

In terms of rocket propulsion for heavier-than-air craft, the Opel RAK-1 flew in 1929 - the principle was established a decade and a half prior to the Me163 seeing service

but they weren't an innovation by WWII standards by virtue of the fact that everybody had them, you can argue that one was better than the other (PPSh springs to mind) but none were a tactical quantum leap ahead of their peers. That's where the StG44 re-wrote the rule book, less reliance on a dedicated support weapon with automatic-full-calibre-everywhere in the section vs opponents still popping away with 9mm.

The Germans definitely gave us the stick grenade, my point was you can turn a Mills Bomb into a stick grenade more cheaply than the Germans can; you can also leave the stick off and carry more ordnance, chancing to luck you'll find more sticks when you get where you are headed. No real deal if you don't, unless you're lobbing them into deep snow.

So the Germans definitely considered rocketry as a viable propulsion system then?

 

[HoHun]

Hi Colin,

>The speed differential wasn't nearly enough to be called decisive and doesn't take into account the rest of the Dora's box of tricks. ETO P-51 pilots are pretty unanimous in their estimate of the Fw190D - they regarded it as a dangerous opponent.

It certainly was, but Davparlr is right that the Fw 190D (and I assume we're all talking about the most numerous variant of the Dora, the Fw 190D-9) was not up to the P-51D's performance at 25000 ft.

The Fw 190D-9 was not a high-altitude fighter, even though it's often addressed as such in popular books. I suspect the use of the Fw 190D-9 as top cover for Fw 190A units gave rise to this notion, but while the D-9 outperforms the A-8 and even the A-9, it's not a high-altitude plane like the D-12 or the Ta 152H for lack of a high-altitude engine. The Jumo 213A really was a medium-altitude engine, undoubtly a great design but not competitive with the V-1650-7 at higher altitudes. The Jumo 213E/F engines were, but there relatively few aircraft thus powered saw combat before the end of the war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[drgondog]

three little observations

"Pg 138
"In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang. At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077"

assembly is not build

Here is what defines 'assemble' for NAA direct production Costs, including labor, for the labor hours cited above.

The North American Aviation Cost figures and Labor hours cited multiple times above include but are not limited to"

Draw aluminum and steel (sheet, bar and tube stock) as required and direct to the manufacturing work cell (stamping, machining, heat treating, etc) to fabricate a part to a design specification.

Move the part (skin, extruded or machined beam cap, engine mount, fitting, clevis, control tube, etc) to the appropriate next stage on manufacturing (stamping, bending, heat treating, etc) to make ribs, bulkhead formers, aileron skins, gun mount fittings, wing skins, etc.

Move the finished parts to the next stage of the process plan (i.e a particular assembly point in the assembly line where panels and stiffeners and webs are riveted together into bulheads, wing/rudder and vertical stabilzer spars are fabricated, then riveted together and staged for the fuselage jigs where the longerons, bulkheads are assembled - where the wing spars and ribs are assembled - where the stabilzer frames are assembled

Assemble all the cockpit formers and supports, engine mounts, lower radiatior -oil cooler attach mounts, control linkages, hydraulic and coolant lines and internal equipment mounts, fuel cell mounts, etc..

Assemble wiring harnesses and cockpit windscreen assembly, the canopy, etc

Rivet skins to wings on the wing assmbly jigs, stabilizer skins, fuselage skins, etc..

Assemble the instrument panel, the removable cowlings and panels, the landing gear

etc, etc, and etc

until the airframe is completely fabricated and ready to install all Government Furnished Equipment.

Install the Engines, connect fuel and coolant lines, wiring harnesses, radios, control switches, cockpit equipment, attach ailerons, elevators and rudder

Install the GFE instruments, radiator, oil cooler, landing gear and gear doors, oxygen bottle, landing lights, propeller.

This is Most of what 'Assemble' means for the NAA labor build up.

Is this clearer?

 

[GrauGeist]

In automotive terms, the actual assembly of a vehicle begins when the work order for a particular vehicle reaches the plant, and an ID tag is generated along with the pick tickets. At that moment, the vehicle is "born" and the building begins.

Building means placing the ID tag on the frame and sending it on down to the line to have all of the parts and pre-assembled components installed, all the way to the point of delivery prep.

Wouldn't this be along the same lines for an aircraft, Bill?

 

[drgondog]

In automotive terms, the actual assembly of a vehicle begins when the work order for a particular vehicle reaches the plant, and an ID tag is generated along with the pick tickets. At that moment, the vehicle is "born" and the building begins.

Building means placing the ID tag on the frame and sending it on down to the line to have all of the parts and pre-assembled components installed, all the way to the point of delivery prep.

Wouldn't this be along the same lines for an aircraft, Bill?

Close Dave - the aircraft begins with a contract number for a specified number of units. The aircraft serial numbers are defined within a 'block'.

Change Orders within that block have Effectivities to differentiate those that receive the modification as a retrofit, and those that will have the package of Engineering Change Orders pacakaged together and become part of the Production sequence w/o requirement for retrofit.

An early dash number/serial number may have a number of ECO applied to it as it goes down the line - and maybe the last sequence in the same line have all the ECO's incorporated in the manufacturing process plan (as well as update the contract costing/pricing) to reflect the 'new' additions/mods.

For it to be an agreed CLI/WBS (Contract Line Item/Work Breakdown Structure) change by the contractor, the changes need to be negotiated and contract updated.

It is the latter 'stuff' that makes an airframe assembly line different from a Mass Production Automobile Battery Production line.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok, that gives me a much better idea of how the process works.

The only thing I know about thier assembly (and the steps involved), to be honest, is from what I've seen in photos and small bits of information gathered from research.

Thanks for the info, Bill!

 

[Demetrious]

We seem keen to discount the presence of the Whirlwind in this fictional time-line, why is its potentially more prominent role so easy to overlook?

I think this is a very good point.

Assuming that this theoretical "flip-flop" of aircraft posits that one air force developed a given fighter rather then another, it's only fair to assume that the development time that went into the fighter that was "taken" went towards another ship. I ask this- if the obsolescence of the Hurricane was evident even by the late 1930s, and the Spitfire wasn't developed, then just what were those Brits working on?

The Hurricane has a lot of good features; ease of maintainance, good durability, stable gun platform, fairly nimble- but it has a poor time-to-altitude, which makes it a horrible interceptor, and interceptors were what the British needed. Assuming that the Brits produced X number of Hurricanes in place of Y number of Spitfires, the only other fighter the Brits really had available in numbers was the P-40. The only way a P-40 is going to get to altitude in time is in pieces; after you set off a bomb under it. Besides, they were badly needed in Africa, anyway. Given all this, the incentive to develop a new interceptor would have been strong, and lacking the Spitfire, the Westwind would be a strong contender (given it's potential as a bomber-destroyer.)

How well the Whirlwind would have performed in that role is another matter. I've seen knowledgeable people on this very forum speaking of how it "would" have been faster then the Mosquito, (which itself was an early-war speed demon,) but my brief internet googling says the Whirlwind was slower then the Spitfire. I assume this has something to do with the promised rather then actual performance of the troubled Perigine engines. The success of the Whirlwind in this alternate time-line would depend largely on what the Whirlwind could do with properly developed engines.

 

[Colin1]

How well the Whirlwind would have performed in that role is another matter. I've seen knowledgeable people on this very forum speaking of how it "would" have been faster then the Mosquito, (which itself was an early-war speed demon,) but my brief internet googling says the Whirlwind was slower then the Spitfire. I assume this has something to do with the promised rather then actual performance of the troubled Perigine engines. The success of the Whirlwind in this alternate time-line would depend largely on what the Whirlwind could do with properly developed engines.

The Rolls-Royce Peregrine's problems were as nothing compared to the growing pains of the Napier Sabre. The Sabre passed its 100-hour Type test with a few snags but it wasn't until production tests that it really began to unravel - 'ovalling' of the piston sleeves, Coffman starter system that shock-loaded the gear train too highly (and often failed to start it), sleeve drive shafts that failed frequently. Engines off the production line often failed 2-hour testing and the Sabre had to be withdrawn for modification and further testing.

Sleeving issues continued to plague the engine and warping within 20-30 hours running time led to unacceptable oil consumption.

The Ministry of Supply approached Bristol Aero-engine Division to produce sleeves that would allow a full engine run with a Sabre. By this time, Napier themselves were just about ready to throw in the towel, being kept in it by Air Ministry authorisation; Bristol Taurus sleeves were close to Sabre dimensions and were machined down for the job. Supplying sleeves to a rival manufacturer didn't exactly delight Bristol, especially with their 2,000hp Centaurus waiting in the wings.
The Bristol sleeves carried the day and full-life testing revealed oil consumption still within spec limits but all in all, hugely expensive to rectify.

i. The Sabre eventually became a reliable engine in its Sabre V version - a long way down the line.
ii. Production costs (minus development costs) were in the region of 4-5 times greater than for a Merlin.
iii. TBO started at 25 hours
iv. Performance fell off at 18,000ft so was of little use in combatting the Fw190 at 20,000ft or above.
v. It was, by the standards of its peers, a hugely complex engine.
vi. Typhoon losses with the Sabre were roughly 1 aircraft per sortie due to engine malfunction.


The Peregrine was a geared supercharged version of the RR Kestrel developing 885hp using 87 octane at a rated altitude of 15,000ft. On commencement of development work, Rolls-Royce were warned that they might be asked to produce no less than 1,600 Peregrines, on 23Mar39 the Air Ministry authorised the production of 440 units, asking RR to scale for a program of 1,960 engines.

At the commencement of trials on 10Nov38 they (pre-production engines) were found to run hot though with satisfactory performance. The starboard engine suffered seized bearings and was removed.

By Dec38 the engines were continuing to 'steam', often running above temp limits. During one test flight, the port engine temp did indeed run far too high. On switching off this engine and heading back the remaining engine began to do the same (this caused an emergency diversion to a nearer airfield and to the test pilot's credit this aerodrome was only rated for Gladiators and Harts).

The Air Ministry became impatient and demanded a handling and performance assessment and on 31Dec38 L6844 was flown to RAE Farnborough where Westland were notified that the outcome of this briefest of trials would be the decider for a contract for 200 aircraft. This was in complete contravention of a recommendation passed in 1935, stating that orders for aircraft must be placed before the prototype was tested.

In Feb39 a conference was held to settle queries from Westland which would affect production. Items on the agenda included

i. propeller clearances
ii. undercarriage
iii. types of pipes and joints
iv. oil tank capacity
v. flap controls
vi. tropical equipment

The Air Ministry wanted flaps and undercart controls moved from the right side of the cockpit to the left side, Petter felt this was unnecessary as it would cause congestion of controls on that side of the aircraft. As regards the tropical equipment, Petter was exasperated as these were not part of the original specification. Westland never wanted to make the changes until the trial installations were approved whereas the Air Ministry would not accept this view. One of their letters replying to Petter's criticisms and difficulties over the Air Ministry's stance stated 'I feel that the difficulties envisaged by you at Yeovil would not have been so great had there been that willingness to cooperate with the Air Ministry which we normally experience with aircraft firms.'

By Mar39, Westland were becoming disturbed by the increasing demands for changes in design and equipment that were being called for. Petter pointed out that these could only be introduced gradually if production was not to be held up; due to the rapid nature of requirement changes, the first 9 aircraft were already rolled off the production line non-standard, aircraft 1-24 inclusive would have some major operational features missing; clearly the first 24 aircraft would not be suitable for overseas operations.

Jun39 and RR were still experiencing problems with the Peregrine, with the priming pump and fuel pump, others with engine cut-out in flight and on take-off, very little was consistent. L6845, on a repeat climb test for radiator suitability had a cut-out at 20,000ft, power setting 2,400rpm and -1lb boost. This was put down to the pump running at too high a temp so a cooling duct was built in, to try and prevent the vapour lock.

It was not enough, production was concurrent with the Merlin and the Peregrine's days were numbered, both it and the Griffon were given a back seat from which the Peregrine was not to return.

It seems strange to me that the Air Ministry were prepared to wade through the enormous technical problems of the Sabre when the Merlin was already in service and providing both sufficient performance and development potential, yet the Peregrine was maligned and eventually abandoned before the Merlin was even fully developed, let alone deployed - before the RAF had something they could put in the air and call a winner.
The demands of the Air Ministry on Westland seemed childishly unrealistic and really came across as an engineered failure; with more commitment and not least, will, the Peregrine's bugs may well have been solved more quickly and with considerably less difficulty than those of the Sabre.

 

[MikeGazdik]

I know very little of the British "system". But it sounds like politics and the military command meddling with the design. The Luftwaffe / Germans had it, and so did the U.S. and the Air Corps.

 

[airboiy]

Well
I think the Chinese invented rocketry, the Germans merely considered it a viable interceptor propulsion system though I bet one or two Komet drivers disagreed...
Jet propulsion research was ongoing behind the scenes of at least three of the principal combatants of WWII.
Everyone had SMGs, the Sten was an SMG, so was the Thompson, the MP40 and PPSH; the Germans gave us the world's first full-calibre assault rifle in the StG44.
What do you get if you lash a Mills bomb to a stick - a cheaper stick grenade...
Give us a few more details on this 'more potent P-38'

I simply meant that the Germans would have solved the problem with steep dives. The P-38's tail and wings would shear off in mid-flight during a ~87 degree dive. The allies, with all their might, couldn't solve this "small problem";
the Germans solved this problem on their BF-110 heavy fighter/destroyer.
They also first used rockets as weapons DURING ww2.

 

[drgondog]

I simply meant that the Germans would have solved the problem with steep dives. The P-38's tail and wings would shear off in mid-flight during a ~87 degree dive. The allies, with all their might, couldn't solve this "small problem";

The problem was complicated, and the solution was delayed by the loss of the XP-38 for test purposes until the YP-38 was available a year later.

The first issue (flutter) masked the second issue (compressibility) as trans sonic flow was not well understood by anyone at the time. The P-38 entered a compressibilty state extremely quickly and the first solution of the tuck down problem was boosted elevator - which indeed caused structural failures.

The P-47 also experienced the nose down tuck as the Me 262. Of the front line US fighters the Mustang was the most successful at NOT exhibiting tuck down due primarily to the Laminar flow airfoil which produced a center of lift close to 35-40% chord - at approximately where the flow would separate on a conventional (P-38/P-47) wing..

It (compressibility dive solution of dive flap/brake) was then further delayed when the dive brake introduction was delayed a year because USAAF demanded that no slow down of production would be allowed to incorporate both manuevering flap and dive brakes into the production P-38J-25.

I believe Germany would have solved it quicker simply because the Germans would have been a.) careful with the prototype and b.) would have had production tooling readier (or not at all) earlier based on their procurement practices... but not because they 'were smarter'.

 

[airboiy]

I believe Germany would have solved it quicker simply because the Germans would have been a.) careful with the prototype and b.) would have had production tooling readier (or not at all) earlier based on their procurement practices... but not because they 'were smarter'.

I didn't mean that they were smarter...I simply meant that the German R&D would have acess to better resources than the Allies, as well as being more careful with their prototypes of aircraft. The Allies were pretty rough with aircraft, as well as impatient with the production time.

I am sorry if I offend anyone with my statements.

 

[drgondog]

I didn't mean that they were smarter...I simply meant that the German R&D would have acess to better resources than the Allies, as well as being more careful with their prototypes of aircraft. The Allies were pretty rough with aircraft, as well as impatient with the production time.

I am sorry if I offend anyone with my statements.

You didn't offend me -

Just out of curiosity why do you think Germany had better access to resources than the US?

What does 'rough and impatient' mean - in contrast to 'gentle and patient'

 

[airboiy]

You didn't offend me -

Just out of curiosity why do you think Germany had better access to resources than the US?

What does 'rough and impatient' mean - in contrast to 'gentle and patient'

Well, the Germans did put a priority on technology ( be it aeroplanes, tanks, guns, etc.) that would win the war. Plus, Germany did invade other countries and siphoned a lot of those countries' natural resources to fuel it's war effort, including scientists, engineers, and skilled workers.

I considered the Allies "rough" with their planes because they put unfinished aircraft in the air for "flight testing". The Germans put their planes through rigorous "ground tests" (i.e. wind tunnels, engine/airframe stress tests) before the prospective planes even graced the sky. Thus, the Allies lost a lot of money, time, and prototypes due to the limited (or lack thereof) of "ground tests".

 

[drgondog]

Well, the Germans did put a priority on technology ( be it aeroplanes, tanks, guns, etc.) that would win the war. Plus, Germany did invade other countries and siphoned a lot of those countries' natural resources to fuel it's war effort, including scientists, engineers, and skilled workers.

But the Allies de-emphasized technology and were determined to build equipment (aircraft, carriers, subs, rifles, trucks, atomic bombs, etc) that would fail?

And the Allies - which had populations in excess of 10x Germany (didn't need conscript labor that also performed acts of sabotage) had a huge pool of scientists and engineers, access to far larger deposits of critical war materials (notably, Oil) - had fewer resources?

I considered the Allies "rough" with their planes because they put unfinished aircraft in the air for "flight testing". The Germans put their planes through rigorous "ground tests" (i.e. wind tunnels, engine/airframe stress tests) before the prospective planes even graced the sky. Thus, the Allies lost a lot of money, time, and prototypes due to the limited (or lack thereof) of "ground tests".

I suggest you go to the library and research a variety of books on WWII aircraft. All the good ones will spend a lot of time regarding the development of your favorite aircraft and you will find that you are 100% wrong regarding your perspective of American and Brit development/test processes.

Certain US aircraft (notably the B-29 and P-38) experienced a variety of gestation problems - both in aerodynamics (P-38 for flutter and transonic flow/separation) as well as large scale systems integration of complex fire control systems, buggy advanced powerplants, etc. (B-29).

If you feel that is typical and that the Germans moved advanced technology smoothly into production I would draw your attention to the study of the FW 190, the He 219, the Ta 154, the Me 262, etc

Welcome to the forum. I'm not gonna pick on you regarding your lack of knowledge about the three or four subjects you have discussed - but you may have a lot to learn - and this is a good place to do just that.

You will find a variety of folks with great knowledge regarding all aspects of WWII. This is a great opportunity to be armed with thoughtful research and facts when expressing opinions on a variety of topics.

 

[airboiy]

Thanks, didn't mean to mess up like that...my great-grandfather was a scientistand professor of aeronautics from Warsaw who was conscripted by the Nazi's (not Germans!) to design and test new aircraft designs. I just assumed all he said was true-obviously now I see my error. He told me what it was like from his perspective. I was very interested in planes when I was young and therefore asked him questions about planes every time I saw him before he died ten years ago...may he rest in peace.

I hope I can learn a thing or two here, as well as not look like an idiot on the forum. Sorry for the mistake!

 

[drgondog]

Thanks, didn't mean to mess up like that...my great-grandfather was a scientistand professor of aeronautics from Warsaw who was conscripted by the Nazi's (not Germans!) to design and test new aircraft designs. I just assumed all he said was true-obviously now I see my error. He told me what it was like from his perspective. I was very interested in planes when I was young and therefore asked him questions about planes every time I saw him before he died ten years ago...may he rest in peace.

I hope I can learn a thing or two here, as well as not look like an idiot on the forum. Sorry for the mistake!

Don't be so humble, you didn't offend me in any way and I seemed overy critical I apologise to you. There are far bigger idiots on this forum and I like to think I am one of those..

 

[MikeGazdik]

I think, perhaps, what "airboiy" was getting at is the famous German craftmanship. Though sometimes over-hyped, they do have a reputation of fine craftsmanship.

And I think he was agreeing with most of us, in that possibly losing a valuable weapon like the XP-38, in a grandstanding stunt, would likely not have happened in Germany pre-war.

Though it may seem you were chastized by drgondog, you were not. He was giving helpful suggestions. In my very short time on this forum, I have learned an incredible amount from him alone, and many many other here!