kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 132
- Apr 23, 2020
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lets suppose that Italy some time in 1938-1942 looks at it's fighters and decides they mostly suck. Further, they get permission from Germany to make (say) Me 109's and the associated engines. How much production might Italy lose by making this decision? Six month, a year, what do you think?
Lets suppose that some time in 1942-1944 the US looks at it's P-40 factories and decides this is not what we need any more. The decide to build (choose-a-fighter) instead. How much production might the US lose by making this decision? Six month, a year, what do you think?
Let assume it's done in an intelligent way. We don't shut down the old production until the last possible moment. We'll get organized, build tooling, inform our supply chain, etc. first. Then switch production in a reasonable and intelligent way.
And in general, is it harder to switch an engine factory or an aircraft factory?
Hey kitplane01,
I really cannot speak to the WWII situation. But I worked on the alternate diesel power plant project for the M1 Abrams back in the early-1980s. The engine was a detail-improved evolution of the then standard AVDS-1790 used in the M60 series of tanks. Even though most of the production equipment would have been the same (about 80%) and the skill set for production pretty much exactly the same, it was estimated that it would take about 6 months from start of switch-over to the first real production engine being accepted by the US Army. Most of the delay would have been due to the change in materials (abut 30% different) supply chain and in the changeover to the new part specifications (about 50% different), followed by the inspection and acceptance testing/certification. This was in peacetime and the push for the engine was never at what it might be in a wartime situation, but there was pressure for immediate production if it was decided to use the diesel rather than the turbine. The project managers (including the production engineers) indicated that it would be impossible to switch over any sooner and have any real chance of quality control.
It took almost exactly two years for the Castle Bromwich factory to start making Spitfires but some time to ramp up production. It took just over a year for the RR factory in Glasgow to produce an engine with production increasing to about 200 month after another 8 months and 400 month after another 9 months. . However these were British factories building British designs. I don't know if there would be language and standards issues building a German design in Italy in the 1930s. As Fastmongrel said an issue is manpower, the RR Glasgow factory produced most of the merlin "in house" and employed 16,000 people.
Also, I wonder if Russian leadership is more "forceful".
Moving a factory but then using the same tooling, workforce, engineers and parts would be much easier than starting from scratch.I thought the Russians could move a factory across the Urals and get it working again in a year??? Conditions had to be better in the UK than Russia. I wonder if there was significant resource constraints. Also, I wonder if Russian leadership is more "forceful".
Possibly, but that was after the Russians were invaded by a bunch of fanatics who were killing for the fun of it. The OP was about building a new factory not moving a factory which is a different proposition. For the factory at Glasgow not only did almost everyone have to be trained from scratch but houses built for workers too.I thought the Russians could move a factory across the Urals and get it working again in a year??? Conditions had to be better in the UK than Russia. I wonder if there was significant resource constraints. Also, I wonder if Russian leadership is more "forceful".
To be fair to people in Canada the factory that first produced Lancasters in UK had already made 202 Manchesters and many other aircraft before that.Moving a factory but then using the same tooling, workforce, engineers and parts would be much easier than starting from scratch.
Perhaps a better example would be the Canadians tooling up to build Lancasters, using US built Packard Merlins. As I recall, there was considerable time and some quality control issues compared to British factories
Lets suppose that Italy some time in 1938-1942 looks at it's fighters and decides they mostly suck. Further, they get permission from Germany to make (say) Me 109's and the associated engines. How much production might Italy lose by making this decision? Six month, a year, what do you think?
Lets suppose that some time in 1942-1944 the US looks at it's P-40 factories and decides this is not what we need any more. The decide to build (choose-a-fighter) instead. How much production might the US lose by making this decision? Six month, a year, what do you think?
Let assume it's done in an intelligent way. We don't shut down the old production until the last possible moment. We'll get organized, build tooling, inform our supply chain, etc. first. Then switch production in a reasonable and intelligent way.
And in general, is it harder to switch an engine factory or an aircraft factory?
don't know that much about how long it took factories to retool during the war, but taking into account that it took the Soviets roughly a year to move their IL-2 factories past the Urals and get them working,