Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I thought of that but it just seemed like the 38 was too complicated for anyone but Lockheed. Maybe a simplified supercharged 38?
Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?
- Thread starter claidemore
- Start date
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think a metalized Yak would have worked. With that said, the original Yak series could have been used for short tactical strikes like in the CBI or used for fighter CAP over a small radius like Guadalcanal. Outside of that it would have been useless in the SWPTO
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Metalized Yak wouldn't have worked? Ever hear of the Yak-9?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep
Not true - although a difficult aircraft to build, additional assembly lines could easily been opened.
BTW look into the different plants P-38 were built at Burbank. There were several assembly lines in different factory locations one line about 3 miles from the main plant.
The first article shows the outside assembly line at plant B-1. The second photo shows the interior of plant B-1. The third photo shows building 304, plant B-6. In later years the Constellation, Electra and later P-3 would be built there.
Point being, every time another line was opened at Burbank, people were hired trained and then put on one of these lines. If there was production at 3 locations at the Lockheed facility, having a subcontractor build P-38s away from Burbank was very do-able. I believe that Vultee built something like 60 P-38Ls before the war ended.
A long, sad goodbye to Plant B-1
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
I think FB was alluding to this in anearlier post, but I might just add my two cents worth. The problem with opening up a new production line for a new type is that it requires jigs and dies to be made up, to a high tolerance, and this requires time and expertise, generally in the form of high quality tradesmen toolmakers. These guys are about as rare as rocking horse Sh*t to be blunt.
Then you need to perfect your production line itself....esentially what is the most efficient way to build your piece....who does what and in what order.....does this gear or this pump go in before this brace or this pipe type questions. This again can take time. Laslty you need to work out your QA program....what needs to be tested and what doesnt need so much QA testing.
None of these are worked out with blueprints. The blueprints tell the toolmakers the design and dimensions of particular items, but it doesnt tell y the factory how be organized and what to look out for....
I have never worked in an aircraft factory, but I have worked on setting up production lines. I assume the same principals would apply, regardless of whether you are making B-1s or toasters
Then you need to perfect your production line itself....esentially what is the most efficient way to build your piece....who does what and in what order.....does this gear or this pump go in before this brace or this pipe type questions. This again can take time. Laslty you need to work out your QA program....what needs to be tested and what doesnt need so much QA testing.
None of these are worked out with blueprints. The blueprints tell the toolmakers the design and dimensions of particular items, but it doesnt tell y the factory how be organized and what to look out for....
I have never worked in an aircraft factory, but I have worked on setting up production lines. I assume the same principals would apply, regardless of whether you are making B-1s or toasters
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
If we COULD get more P-38s, why didn't we? It was available in 1939! We could have replaced all of our P-40s and lend leased THEM to our allies.Yep
Not true - although a difficult aircraft to build, additional assembly lines could easily been opened.
BTW look into the different plants P-38 were built at Burbank. There were several assembly lines in different factory locations one line about 3 miles from the main plant.
The first article shows the outside assembly line at plant B-1. The second photo shows the interior of plant B-1. The third photo shows building 304, plant B-6. In later years the Constellation, Electra and later P-3 would be built there.
Point being, every time another line was opened at Burbank, people were hired trained and then put on one of these lines. If there was production at 3 locations at the Lockheed facility, having a subcontractor build P-38s away from Burbank was very do-able. I believe that Vultee built something like 60 P-38Ls before the war ended.
A long, sad goodbye to Plant B-1
drgondog
Major
almost 3x in cost, only had prototype tooling until 1942, major dive perfromance questions unresolved - aside from that it was a winner.
Unfortunately it did not reach its potential until long after a better and cheaper fighter, P-51B, was available off assembly lines in mid 1943.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Didn't they resolve that dive issue with special flaps fitted just outboard of the engine nacelles?
Last edited:
Seriously, it's not forbidden to think a little before posting, even for moderators.
So from your theory the Aichi D3A /SBD Dauntless /Helldiver job could have been done by a Zero/ Wildcat/Hellcat fighter.
In reality it didn't work, for obvious reasons ... that dooesn't need to be developped any longer.
Regards
VG-33
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Guess what? Your arrogant @sshole response just got you 7 days with a dunce cap on. If you choose to come back you will govern yourself accordingly.
But to once again address your dumb @ss comment - you have no way of proving that the Tu-2 or Stuka were more accurate attack aircraft than the P-47. That was the whole point. Until you're able to prove otherwise by some accurate and tangible means (pilot reports, flight tests, etc.) I suggest just keeping your mouth shut.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Soviets flew western aircraft in some cases very successfully...P-39...
So the concept of getting used to a differnet style of plane should be no bother.
How long does it take to licence build an aircraft and put in full production? 2 years maybe and the aircraft you were trying to build becomes obsolete.
So the concept of getting used to a differnet style of plane should be no bother.
How long does it take to licence build an aircraft and put in full production? 2 years maybe and the aircraft you were trying to build becomes obsolete.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Technically no, but there is a learning curve when basic standards that apply to a current fleet are suddenly changed to support one airframe type, both operational and maintenance wise
Very true especially if we look at this during WW2 with regards to combat aircraft.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Well come to think of it I can't remember any examples of a foreign contract built aircraft that was made in large numbers by any side. While it seemed easy enough for GM to take over making F4Fs for instance, having it come from elsewhere is a different thing.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Look at the Canadain aircraft industry during WW2. The Aussies did pretty well too.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Canada was able to produce some Hurricanes. I didn't know that CAC made any foreign designs, what licensed production did they have?
Take your own advice next time...
MrCreak
Airman
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Canadians had to "americanize" the Bristol Blenheim when they produced it. American instraments, fittings, piping and such. Some British alloys were proprietary and had no 100% equivelent SAE alloy. 99% maybe
Canada and to some extent Austrailia also had America to draw on when it came to supply of machine tools.
Even with such supply, to do as well as they did starting from basicly nothing with few if any trained workers was quite an achievement.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
First time I heard of that. Which of these alloys were "proprietary?" For the most part you were looking at 24T aluminum and 4330 steels. There was magnesium used as well.Canadians had to "americanize" the Bristol Blenheim when they produced it. American instraments, fittings, piping and such. Some British alloys were proprietary and had no 100% equivelent SAE alloy. 99% maybe
Agree
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The alloys might have more to do with engine construction than airframe.
But as an example of possiable confusion I wil give you this. Aluminium rolled sheet (for baffles, cowling, etc.) could be called 17S as an alloy trade designation. It was called QQ-A-353 under a federal system which the army used while the navy called the same alloy 47A3c and the S.A.E called it 26 with the A.S.T.M. calling it B78-36T.
Or for Aluminium forgings (for Pistons, crankcases, connecting rods, Impellors, etc) you have alloy trade designations of 14S, 18S, 25S, 3S, and A51S all of which are called QQ-A-367a by the federal and army sytem and all of which are called 46A7b by the navy sytem. A.S.T.M has no designation and the S.A.E. has designations only for for the 15S and A51S which it calls 27 and 280 respectively.
Each of these does actually have slightly different composition
See: supermarine spitfire | 1939 | 0927 | Flight Archive alloy
and: 1938 | 2180 | Flight Archive alloy
Is DTD 351 the exact same as 24T aluminium? is it close enough?
I don't know, all I am saying is that just having a set of blue prints from another country doesn't mean you are ready to start production in your country. Things may have gotten a lot more standerized since WW II.
But as an example of possiable confusion I wil give you this. Aluminium rolled sheet (for baffles, cowling, etc.) could be called 17S as an alloy trade designation. It was called QQ-A-353 under a federal system which the army used while the navy called the same alloy 47A3c and the S.A.E called it 26 with the A.S.T.M. calling it B78-36T.
Or for Aluminium forgings (for Pistons, crankcases, connecting rods, Impellors, etc) you have alloy trade designations of 14S, 18S, 25S, 3S, and A51S all of which are called QQ-A-367a by the federal and army sytem and all of which are called 46A7b by the navy sytem. A.S.T.M has no designation and the S.A.E. has designations only for for the 15S and A51S which it calls 27 and 280 respectively.
Each of these does actually have slightly different composition
See: supermarine spitfire | 1939 | 0927 | Flight Archive alloy
and: 1938 | 2180 | Flight Archive alloy
Is DTD 351 the exact same as 24T aluminium? is it close enough?
I don't know, all I am saying is that just having a set of blue prints from another country doesn't mean you are ready to start production in your country. Things may have gotten a lot more standerized since WW II.
