MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
duplicate post
How interchangeable were aircraft spares and consumables? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
On cars and tractors etc but not so much on aircraft where there is much less space to swing them
It doesnt explain why 12 yards = 11 meters, which has been confusing sports fans since soccer was first played.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
It is much easier if you think in terms of ten feet equals 3 metres. One metre is 39.4 inches so three metres is just 1.8 inches short of 10 feet.
Working that way 12 metres equals 40 feet so 11 metres equals roughly 40 feet less 40 inches so about 12 yards if you are happy to be 6 inches out in 12 yards.
12 yards equals 10.9728 metres if you are picky or 11 metres equals 12.02975 yards
PS when football (or as you call it soccer) was first played the goal posts were burnt out doorways, the ball a dead enemies head and your upper body was too tired from swinging a sword for hours so you did not want to bend down and pick the ball up.
PS2 In Australia they play Aussie rules. The field has no fixed size (none of the inventors were intelligent enough to use a tape measure) the field has round ends (they were too dumb to remember the 3-4-5 rule for square corners) and they replaced the cross bar with two extra uprights way off to the side of the goal (because they could not remember whether the ball was to go over or under the crossbar). Kicking between the goal posts and the outer posts still gives you points because it is much easier and that produces scores for both sides of over 100 points in most games and they think that indicates skill. Real skill is getting the ball into a much smaller goal that has a defender, not getting it between undefended posts nearly four times as wide with a crossbar that you can not go above.
PS3 Aussie rules was invented at a school for the sons of the upper class gentry
Working that way 12 metres equals 40 feet so 11 metres equals roughly 40 feet less 40 inches so about 12 yards if you are happy to be 6 inches out in 12 yards.
12 yards equals 10.9728 metres if you are picky or 11 metres equals 12.02975 yards
PS when football (or as you call it soccer) was first played the goal posts were burnt out doorways, the ball a dead enemies head and your upper body was too tired from swinging a sword for hours so you did not want to bend down and pick the ball up.
PS2 In Australia they play Aussie rules. The field has no fixed size (none of the inventors were intelligent enough to use a tape measure) the field has round ends (they were too dumb to remember the 3-4-5 rule for square corners) and they replaced the cross bar with two extra uprights way off to the side of the goal (because they could not remember whether the ball was to go over or under the crossbar). Kicking between the goal posts and the outer posts still gives you points because it is much easier and that produces scores for both sides of over 100 points in most games and they think that indicates skill. Real skill is getting the ball into a much smaller goal that has a defender, not getting it between undefended posts nearly four times as wide with a crossbar that you can not go above.
PS3 Aussie rules was invented at a school for the sons of the upper class gentry
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,688
- May 13, 2018
To quote another member, "The things one learns here."
Hi
Please explain about the powder, a hundred years before means that you are saying the British had not introduced smokeless powders? Before WW1, from the 1890s, the British were using Cordite, during WW1 the British went over to using nitro-cellulose powder (Dupont No. 16 etc) in Cartridge .303 Mk VII Z. As far as I understand it the US .30 cartridge also used nitro-cellulose powder. What did it use then?
Mike
Shortround6
Major General
You could build a .303 gun that use the same outside frame/parts as a US .30cal.
Some of the same inside parts although quite a few would be different.
The Browning was rather easy to change calibers on but the .303 and .30-06 were probably the most difficult.
Some of the same inside parts although quite a few would be different.
The Browning was rather easy to change calibers on but the .303 and .30-06 were probably the most difficult.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
There is a book called (from memory) Guns of the RAF (or Royal Air Force that goes into this in some detail. I no longer have a copy or I would scan the relevant pages.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The 303 gun is about 1.5 lb heavier than the 30 cal and fires some 50rpm faster. Some details - unfortunately the manual does not tabulate both in the same manner. 303 first
FOR 30 CAL
Sorry I do not have an equivalent diagram of the 30 cal
Last edited:
Avn-Tech
Airman
During WW II, The U.S. Military issued an interchange manual called a -13. Most parts that were furnished G.F.E. were interchangeable between aircraft (Example: instruments, landing gear, Engines, Ect. . . ).
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I have never seen a -13 interchange manual. That does not mean they do not exist but it does mean I would like to know the full number of any you know of. I have been restoring aircraft since 1962 so have a certain amount of experience and a large tech library and always like to expand my knowledge.
I have six different versions of the monthly TO 00-1 ranging from 1943-04-01 to 1946-10-01. I have digitized and OCR'd all of them
The last three list 00-45 Interchangeability and Cross Reference Charts consisting in October 46 of
You will note they are all 1945 publications, The first 00-45 in 1943 was
In August 44 only 00-45-1 is listed with a date (May 44). Some others are listed but with no dates meaning they had not yet been issued
There were some general interchange manuals like 00-25-29 which covers major components between the various sub-models of the same model aircraft, the much smaller 00-25-10 series that 00-45 replaced and 03-25-10 - Landing Gear Equipment
After a fairly short look through my indexes I did find a number of other interchange manuals like these below but no -13 interchange manual for any aircraft so I would be most interested in seeing number and the title page of any of those documents you have.
There are also a number of other pubs like this one but again no -13
I have six different versions of the monthly TO 00-1 ranging from 1943-04-01 to 1946-10-01. I have digitized and OCR'd all of them
The last three list 00-45 Interchangeability and Cross Reference Charts consisting in October 46 of
You will note they are all 1945 publications, The first 00-45 in 1943 was
In August 44 only 00-45-1 is listed with a date (May 44). Some others are listed but with no dates meaning they had not yet been issued
There were some general interchange manuals like 00-25-29 which covers major components between the various sub-models of the same model aircraft, the much smaller 00-25-10 series that 00-45 replaced and 03-25-10 - Landing Gear Equipment
After a fairly short look through my indexes I did find a number of other interchange manuals like these below but no -13 interchange manual for any aircraft so I would be most interested in seeing number and the title page of any of those documents you have.
There are also a number of other pubs like this one but again no -13
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Interchange between nations was very limited outside of spark plug threads and Schraeder/Dill parts.
Even in each individual country there were a lot of non-interchangeable basic components.
For example in the UK the Fuel caps on Bristol aircraft were a purely Bristol design and in the US a lot of companies, Curtiss and Lockheed in particular, had a range of parts tahat are not interchangeable with other manufacturers that are often surprising. For example in ww2 only Curtiss used 78 degree rivets (Boeing do now) and Lockheed had a lot of screws and bolts that did not comply with the AC/AN specs.
This was despite the Brits having the Air Ministry AGS standard parts (including fuel caps) and the US having the prewar AC standards that morphed into the AN standards during WW2.
In most cases AC and AN parts are interchangeable but in hydraulic components many are most definitely not. Even some of the "interchangeable" AN parts are only one way interchange meaning you can replace the AC part with the AN part but not the other way around as the material spec has been changed and the new AN part is stronger than the old AC part.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Within a very very restricted range.
Few of the instruments off the NA-16 derivatives (BT-9, BT-14, BC-1, etc AT-6/T-6 etc, P-64) are interchangeable between all NA-16 derivatives let alone with the P-51 or B-25 or other NAA products.
Likewise tyres and brakes. Both the T-6 series and some P-40's use Hayes 27 inch wheels with smooth contour tyres and the same diameter Hayes brakes but none of the wheels, tyres or brakes are interchangeable between the T-6 and P-40.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's surprising. I would think manufacturers would be for rationalization of the none "secret stuff". Cost reduction and economy of scale from component source manufacture. More efficient inventory control.
Very informative post, MiTasol.
Very informative post, MiTasol.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One thing to consider, is the number of manufacturers involved with their own established manufacturing process.
For example, lockheed had their own venders supplying fuel caps that had been designed and engineered specifically for their product.
Same for Consolidated, Republic, Curtiss and so on.
If they had to standardize their fuel caps across the industry, how long would it take to reach a design that met each aircraft type made by each manufacturer and even still, how long would it take for each vendor to retool to meet the new spec?
In addition, existing types in service would have to be retrofitted to meet the change, too, otherwise you'd have compatability issues with types being intermixed at squadron level.
For example, lockheed had their own venders supplying fuel caps that had been designed and engineered specifically for their product.
Same for Consolidated, Republic, Curtiss and so on.
If they had to standardize their fuel caps across the industry, how long would it take to reach a design that met each aircraft type made by each manufacturer and even still, how long would it take for each vendor to retool to meet the new spec?
In addition, existing types in service would have to be retrofitted to meet the change, too, otherwise you'd have compatability issues with types being intermixed at squadron level.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Agreed but in most, but far from all, cases the company had a preferred supplier that supplied the standard AN part but used the customers part number to it.
In many cases the Consolidated/Curtiss/Douglas/etc drawing have a note saying something like identical to ANnnn and/or supplied by xxxx as ANnnn or xxxx part number ANnnn.
As an example early on many of the pilot seats were AN7505 renumbered or with minor additions/variations that number included in the BoM or as a note.
For nuts, bolts and screws in many, but of coarse not all, cases Curtiss used the AC/AN number but left the prefix off so AN 365-1032 became 365-1032. Curtiss used a lot of Reed and Prince (Frearson) head screws that few others did and what really confuses me is they often used both R&P and Phillips head screws on the same part. I am guessing the R&P head screws had a slightly greater strength as I can see no other logical reason.
In many cases the Consolidated/Curtiss/Douglas/etc drawing have a note saying something like identical to ANnnn and/or supplied by xxxx as ANnnn or xxxx part number ANnnn.
As an example early on many of the pilot seats were AN7505 renumbered or with minor additions/variations that number included in the BoM or as a note.
For nuts, bolts and screws in many, but of coarse not all, cases Curtiss used the AC/AN number but left the prefix off so AN 365-1032 became 365-1032. Curtiss used a lot of Reed and Prince (Frearson) head screws that few others did and what really confuses me is they often used both R&P and Phillips head screws on the same part. I am guessing the R&P head screws had a slightly greater strength as I can see no other logical reason.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Interchangeability was maximized within limits and two of the major limiting factors were weight and performance
Using the T-6 and P-40N wheels and brakes as a typical example. Both aircraft use 27" Hayes wheels and brakes.
The P-40 is somewhat heavier and lands somewhat faster. It therefore requires a stronger wheel and more powerful brakes so the T-6 units will under-perform. Both P-40 units weigh more than the equivalent T-6 component.
The brakes are the same diameter but the P-40 brake is somewhat wider and requires stronger castings to withstand the greater loads and heat. And the brake drum being much wider is also much heavier. Because the lining is wider the supporting structure must also be wider and so it goes. Most of the minor components are interchangeable like rivets, wheel bearings and axle nuts as are the hub caps.
If you use the P-40 brakes on the T-6 you will end up with the aircraft on its nose unless you are VERY careful plus you are carrying a weight penalty. This would probably be only a few kilos/pounds but add a whole lot of other similar weight penalties and your payload and performance are shot to ----
Last edited:
Hi
I now have access to a copy of 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G F Wallace, pages 58-59 relate to Cordite being used (also note the problems with Colt drawings and their reliance on 'hand fitting' during production):
However, 'The OH of The Ministry of Munitions, Volume XI' has the following:
Volume X also has information on production of Nitrocellulose Powder during WW1:
The book 'British Aircraft Armament, Volume 2' by R Wallace Clarke, also mention Nitrocellulose Powder in use by the British from during WW1:
I believe problems with ammunition during the 1930s may possibly be down to the use of the huge stocks of ammunition that had built up during WW1 still being used. But the information contained in these other publications appear to be different to the G F Wallace comments in his book.
Mike
Explain how yards fits into the Imperial system and you'll understand why the rest of the world went over to metrics...
The length units of the British Imperial system (identical, since 1963, with the United States customary system) are given in the following table:
| Name of unit | Value in terms of smaller units | Value (post-1963) in terms of the meter |
|---|---|---|
| inch | 0.0254 | |
| foot | 12 inches | 0.3048 |
| yard | 3 feet | 0.9144 |
| rod | 5½ yards | 5.0292 |
| furlong | 40 rods | 201.168 |
| mile | 8 furlongs | 1609.344 |
| league | 3 miles | 4828.032 |
From here:
British Imperial units of length or distance
The British Imperial system of units was established on June 17, 1824, by the Weights and Measures Act. Strictly speaking, it is not correct to use the term British Imperial for units in use before that date, and they are better described as traditional British. The base unit of length or...
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Thank you Mike - that is definitely worth bacon.
Your conclusion may well be the answer but as I read the additional material you provided, which infers that both services used NC, I wondered if this was an inter-service thing with the Navy going NC early and the Army sticking with Cordite because of India, Malaya, etc, as long as possible. Given the large volumes of ammunition imported from the US in ww2 I would expect that the Army and RAF did, in reality, use far more NC ammo than Mr Wallace indicates.
This also suggests a major difference in the way the Army and Navy stored powder or one would expect the navy to have had the same problems in hot climates. Maybe it was a simple as the stuff deteriorated in a very confined space but not in bags like used on large guns. Just a wild guess
I was also very surprised to see that they were able to recondition damaged NC powder
