Lancaster Vs. B-24

Which was the better WWII bomber?

  • Total voters
    45

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

Flyboy, youre really ignorant in the production of WW2 aircraft. Tooling can be built fast. This is basically 1930's technology, not the stuff you worked on.

The fact that so many different types of planes could be built by the thousands by all of the combatants meant it was not a complex job.

Think about it. B1 production line of the 80's was a tad different than a Lanc line in 1943. So dont pretend you are an expert in aircraft production lines of WW2 because you didnt work it, you didnt design the tooling and you werent in the front office planning the work. Switching the tooling from one aircraft to another would take a couple of months at the top. If it was done in the US witha ll the inneficiencies and wastage we inccured, it could be done in Britain under their more efficient resource allocation

If you want to talk about production in the 60's and 70's I will listen to you.

And the V1's and V2's had an accuracy measured in miles. They managed to hit cities and not individual factories. They didnt hit any of importance unless it was a lucky hit. In fact a V2 landed right on top of my Grandfather in 1945 and it missed the London dockyards by at least a mile. Great accuracy huh? . And I know damn well the Brits did not slow down under the V1 or V2 attacks anymore than the Germans stopped their work because of the bombing.

If a british commander in the field wanted a Beaufighter, then he would be told none are available. Tough luck to him. He can have a Typhoon, Mosquito or a B25.
 
Excuse me? Since when are you the expert on WWII aircraft manufacturing. Joe has been working in the industry for a long time and he probably knows more about the manufacture of airplanes than the rest of us. Tooling and what he was taling about may have changed a bit, but the basic premise of making the tooling and setting up the lines have not really changed.
 
I was in the aerospace field for 21 years and I know a thing or two about tooling. He extrapolates modern production lines of complex aircraft of today applying them to aircraft production of 65 years ago.

I dont think his age is in his 80's and has ever had first hand experience building any airplane of that era in a factory under mass production, or designing tooling for WW2 aircraft during those years. Like I said, he knows his stuff for postwar, but for him to say that the tooling of that era was so complex as to take years to design, is sort of disproven by the vast numbers of airplanes designed and built within months.

Back then there were lots of machinists and tool makers who could produce those jigs in a jiffy. And the production tolerances were much looser than today so they could all be built in a hurry.

Back in the 80's I worked at TRW (Evans, remember that company in Redondo Beach? huh) and the big project I was working on was being delayed because of the tooling we were required to use was far more close fitting than what was needed. The project engineer in charge of that portion of our project started his life as a tool maker at Lockheed for the PV-1 Ventura and he gave a screaming discourse on why they could build airplanes "back then" so fast was the simple tooling and specs needed for aircraft of that era. And he was right on.

Flyboy has undoubtably heard second hand accounts of production, and so have I.
 
syscom3 said:
Flyboy has undoubtably heard second hand accounts of production, and so have I.
Click to expand...

I built or was in volved with the construction of close to 200 airplanes, HANDS ON, far from second hand...

Production tooling in the 1970s and early 80s changed little from the 1940s - even on the 1011 and DC-10 production lines...

I remember TRW, I lived close by - Let's see, how many AIRPLANES rolled out of that facility!!!
 
We built plenty of complex things there.

And since you mentioned you lived in the south bay, I'm sure you remember that the machinists tended to go to any facility in the area that had the contracts. Or did you forget that?

Now I'm curious, what factory did you assemble airplanes at in 1941-1945?
 
syscom3 said:
We built plenty of complex things there.
Click to expand...
complex?!? Satellites?!? Rockets?!? BUT NOT AIRPLANES?!?
syscom3 said:
And since you mentioned you lived in the south bay, I'm sure you remember that the machinists tended to go to any facility in the area that had the contracts. Or did you forget that?
Click to expand...
Oh I remember that well, it was the "good ole days" when you could change jobs for more pay like you were changing under-ware, god bless Ronald Regan, I worked for Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, Sikorsky, and that's for starters....
syscom3 said:
Now I'm curious, what factory did you assemble airplanes at in 1941-1945?
Click to expand...
I assembled aircraft in Building 304 Burbank which was built in 1942. The tooling that assembled the P-3 had its linage from tooling designed in the 1940s, as a matter of fact some of the minor tooling details (clamps, stops, etc)were drawn in 1944!!!!!!

About half of the people I worked with had senority PRIOR TO 1950 - which means they were around in the war years, I learned a lot from these folks especially how Lockheed aircraft were assembled then and now....

And for your edification, the F-117 tooling was little different, it was very basic. the only modern tooling used to assemble aircraft in Southern California during that period was found at Rockwell on the B-1, and at Northrop's B-2 facility which had computer alignment tapes similar to a CNC machine that lined up their B-2 sub- assemblies. Lockheed and Douglas (on their MD-80 and DC-10 lines) were still using tooling based on 1940s technology...
 
LOL Wow now I am really really laughing my ass of here. That was a pretty dumb remark syscom about FBJ! I have more experience tooling around on "Actual Aircraft" than you do syscom and FBJ puts me to shame. Hes been doing this job propbably longer than I have been alive.

You just entered the world of ignorance!

I think FBJ can tell you this syscom:
 

Attachments

  • shut_up_bitch_750.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 316
I have been told there was alot of labour strife(strikes) in the UK during the war was this true and was there similar problems in the US
 
There werent any major labor incidents in the US during the war. The unions agree'd to a govt proposal to have no strikes for the duration. With workers having the freedom to work at any plant they wanted to, they moved about if they had problems with management.

Australia had some labor disputes in the ports, but that was quickly solved when US troops threatened to remove the strikers at gun point and do the work themselves. I think it had to do with some dockworkers refusing to unload a transport because it was raining really hard. The transport had some vitally needed material onboard, and when the US authorities heard about it, they went "ballisic". It might have been in Darwin, but I'm not sure.
 

Deradler, you dont know anything about my background, so as in the words of Archie bunker, "stifle yerself".

FBJ, obviously you have never seen a satelite structure or a rocket motor being built. Some parts easy to make, some more difficult. Some tooling built in a jiffy, some needed some time to build. And none of it was difficult to duplicate once the blueprints were finalized.

A drill press is a drill press. If its already in place building parts for one plane, its in place to build parts for another. Building the dies, jigs and whatever is an easy process.

Go read what I said before. Converting an existing factory to build a plane thats already in production is not a difficult task. Blueprints already exist and it only takes a couple of months to build all the tooling you need. It doesnt take two years. Hah. How do you suppose the Mustang (Apache) was designed and put into production in less than a year? Plus the brits werent dumb so their was always some spare jigs and tools held back as insurance in case they were needed due to bombing, fire accident, what have you. They could be used at the new factories.

And take a hint, the P3 was not a B17. Two different era's for manufacturing. The P3 was not built in a war emergency scenario like the other aircraft of the WW2 era. If management wanted tooling built really fast, it was done quickly without fanfare.
 
I worked on Trident missile liners and was a source inspector for Lockheed Missiles and Space Division while doing some TDY. Simple tube structures very big but simple, but you're right my exposure to Space Vehicles is limited, it's a whole different world, but to say overall tooling is easy to make, well maybe if you're building a satellite......

syscom3 said:
A drill press is a drill press. If its already in place building parts for one plane, its in place to build parts for another. Building the dies, jigs and whatever is an easy process.
Click to expand...
TOTALLY DISAGREE! While some tooling is simple, you have other pieces of tooling that have to hold tolerances tighter than .001, have to be maintained continually on level ground and have to be periodically inspected for ground movement, especially in Southern California - the only way you're doing this and keeping the production line moving if you have a lot of bodies......

A drill press is a drill press?!? Tell that to a tool maker - they were a cut above the normal assembler because their trade is basically an art. Don't say that to an old Douglas guy, he'll try to kick you in you're nuts!!!!

And try building dies and Jigs when you're being bombed, it IS a difficult process.......
It was a single seat fighter DESIGNED to go together with little production tooling. The P-80 was also done quickly using tooling from the P-38, in fact the P-80s nose is the same as the P-38s, its just inverted.....

Go read my early posts, we're talking bombers, big 4 engine guys.....

syscom3 said:
Plus the brits werent dumb so their was always some spare jigs and tools held back as insurance in case they were needed due to bombing, fire accident, what have you. They could be used at the new factories.
Click to expand...

That they weren't, and they realized that if a piece of tooling was destroyed, they may not of had the manpower available to replace it..

And I been inside both aircraft (Have you?). And I'm talking inside the wings and internal structure. I could tell you the methodology that went into the manufacturing of both changed little from the 40s, into the Mid 50, when the initial Electra tooling was constructed.

Take a hint - many aircraft tooling engineers design things based on earlier experiences and things they were familiar with. Many of the Tooling guys I worked with started off at the Vega Plant. Have you ever bothered to look at the B-17 Vertical Stabilizer and compare the shape to some later Lockheed airplanes? That wasn't a coincidence, just like using a modified P-38 nose on the P-80, but then again they don't probably don't do things like that at a facility that builds satellites...
 
syscom3 said:
Deradler, you dont know anything about my background, so as in the words of Archie bunker, "stifle yerself".
Click to expand...

Stop being stupid in this thread then.


Neither have I, but obviously you dont know what all goes into building an aircraft.


And you know exactly how a B-17 bomber was build and what it took. I dont think so. Unless you worked on the assy line and really know differently, dont tell other people they dont know what they are talking about, when you really dont either!
 
evangilder said:
Keep in mind that the early B-17s were also not built in a war emergency scenario either. Most of the basic structure was not changed during production either.
Click to expand...

Yep - when major design changes are implemented during aircraft production, the busiest people in the plant are the tooling folks. Engineers design the thing, manufacturing engineers have to figure out how to build it, tooling engineers have to figure to pull both of their efforts together so the thing will be built right. Like putting 10 pounds of sh#t in a 5 pound bag...
 

Are you Serious! I thought it was so easy to buld a plane. I thought they just got together and folded pieces of paper and cardboard and then just went out and flew it! Man am I shocked!

 

 
syscom3 said:
Switching the tooling from one aircraft to another would take a couple of months at the top. If it was done in the US witha ll the inneficiencies and wastage we inccured, it could be done in Britain under their more efficient resource allocation
.
Click to expand...

What total rot. If it was that easy to switch production we would have stopped building Sterlings and switched to Lancs way back in 1942. Hurricanes would also have stopped being produced in 1942. Germany would have stopped the 109 in around 1943 and gone to the 190. He111 would have been switched to something say a Ju188. P40's would have been converted to say a P51. Dare I say B17 to B24, C47 to C46, Ju52 to almost any other transport, the examples are endless

Syscom. You are big on statements but light on facts. Can I ask for ANY example of a Major factory switching from one type to another in two months.

And as for this
quote If a british commander in the field wanted a Beaufighter, then he would be told none are available. Tough luck to him. He can have a Typhoon, Mosquito or a B25.
I didn't realise it was so easy to convert from one plane to another. Crew training, spares, maintanence, pity if your on Anti Shipping patrol and want to drop a torpedo, never mind I am sure the Germans/Japs will not mind.

You also seem to think that we had an excess of machine tools, you are so so wrong. Did you know that at the start of the war we had One machine making Merlin crakshafts.
When I was training in the Fleet Air Arm we were using Lathes marked Wartime Tolerances Only. When I asked, was told these were only to be used for training and non critical parts because they had failed the QA test but rather than throw them away were used for other roles.
 
and sys, a single 4 engined bomber is not the same as 4 single engined fighters, the empty weight of a spit Mk.IX was about 5,634lbs, the empty weight of a lanc? 36,811lbs, so, is the empty lanc the equivilant of 4 empty spits? NO!

and you say you work at this company making stalites? have you ever actually put anything together in your life? i'm a farmer's son, what does that mean? it means i've worked around machinery, now i'm not saying i know as much about machinery about many of the other members, but i'm 15 and i can tell you that when making anything with machinery you HAVE to be precise, even working on farm machines, if you make a mistake, it aint gonna go, so don't say that standards were lower during the war, because you can't skimp...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register