USA too much variety?

[pattle]

sorry is wasn't trying to point fingers at anyone. i've worked in the auto industry for 20 years and even with computer tracking and bar codes at many points along the way we would get the wrong parts on the line or even into the car only to have to stop the line or even recall the parts. it seems pretty sure that someone opened a crate to find the wrong parts. it may not have happened enough to cause problems but it may have. that's why i asked

i'm not very mechanical, i would have thought that working one a radial engine would be quit a bit different for an inline.

It makes sense as I know that after World War Two mechanics had to be certificated as being trained on a specific jet engine type before being able to work on it.
I am also quite confident that engine mechanics and other ground crew were given specific training in the RAF during World War Two. I am quite certain I have read articles where wartime ground crew have mentioned that they were sent to a certain place at a certain time to be trained on new or different equipment, and when you think about it they would have needed to be. Just imagine going from working on Merlins to Bristol Hercules engines you would need to know what you were doing before you signed off a Lancasters engines.
Mis directed deliveries happen, besieged troops have had useless articles dropped to them at great risk by aircraft so it must also have happened under less urgent circumstances.

 

[stona]

For instance, how would the 8th AF have fared if all the mechanics in the P-38 groups were unable to work on the P-51s once those groups had been re-equipped with the latter? Or the RAF when Hurricane squadrons switched to Spitfires?

I can tell you that the RAF did not fare terribly well as squadrons converted from Hurricanes to Spitfires. Obviously the engines and armament were not the problem but the air frame was. The Air Ministry had realised that the Spitfire would need special maintenance facilities and trained personnel in the first months of its deployment. We today tend to forget how "modern" the Spitfire would have appeared to airframe riggers and fitters brought up and trained on stringbags of one type or another. They could just about manage the Hurricane which was the end of that line of succession, the Spitfire was the first in an entirely new line.
This is why designated Spitfire bases with the requisite equipment and personnel were established at Hornchurch, Duxford, Biggin Hill and Middle Wallop. Damaged Hurricanes landing at forward airfields could often be repaired there and flown home to their sector airfield and returned to action in hours. The same was not true for the Spitfire which in the early months often had to be dismantled and returned by road to its sector airfield for even minor repair.
This is also why Spitfire squadrons based at forward airfields, like the two at Filton for example, suffered from low serviceability rates. It took a while for personnel to be trained to look after the new types of aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Ascent]

It's not just production of the aircraft it's the support of them as well. When all your supplies have to take up precious shipping space and pass through U-boat infested waters it must surely be easier to support 1000 of one type then 500 each of two.

 

[Shortround6]

I can tell you that the RAF did not fare terribly well as squadrons converted from Hurricanes to Spitfires. Obviously the engines and armament were not the problem but the air frame was. The Air Ministry had realised that the Spitfire would need special maintenance facilities and trained personnel in the first months of its deployment. We today tend to forget how "modern" the Spitfire would have appeared to airframe riggers and fitters brought up and trained on stringbags of one type or another. They could just about manage the Hurricane which was the end of that line of succession, the Spitfire was the first in an entirely new line.
This is why designated Spitfire bases with the requisite equipment and personnel were established at Hornchurch, Duxford, Biggin Hill and Middle Wallop. Damaged Hurricanes landing at forward airfields could often be repaired there and flown home to their sector airfield and returned to action in hours. The same was not true for the Spitfire which in the early months often had to be dismantled and returned by road to its sector airfield for even minor repair.
This is also why Spitfire squadrons based at forward airfields, like the two at Filton for example, suffered from low serviceability rates. It took a while for personnel to be trained to look after the new types of aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

Perhaps they should have transferred riggers and fitters who had been working on Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens and Whitleys?

Aside from the metal rear fuselage what did a Spitfire have that a Hurricane did not?

 

[snelson]

you know sometimes i out think myself.

while i'm not very good at engines, i am pretty good with firearms. and i'm sure that i could do basic maintenance on guns that i haven't worked on in the past, if you understand the basics of how they work you can work on about anything. the same would work on cars and planes.

 

[syscom3]

I think for the USAAF, many groups or HQ units had technical representatives from the aircraft manufacturer. They took on the role as being the expert for the airframe. But that was at a level of maintence that was above the squadron level.

 

[stona]

Perhaps they should have transferred riggers and fitters who had been working on Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens and Whitleys?

Maybe they did transfer and train men qualified on Blenheims, I don't know. I just know that their was a shortage of men trained to maintain Spitfires in Fighter Command by the Air Ministry's own admission.
Cheers
Steve

 

[bobbysocks]

its not like they would have to had to figure it all out by themselves. there were service manuals for engine and airframes etc. with step by step instructions....with torque settings and all other adjustments...and pictures. with probably the exception of a couple routine maintenance jobs...changing plugs, oil change, etc. those manuals would be read and followed for the job at hand. it might take a mechanic who is not familar with that specific engine or airframe a little longer but they probably could negotiate their way through minor repairs without too much problem.

 

[OldSkeptic]

I can tell you that the RAF did not fare terribly well as squadrons converted from Hurricanes to Spitfires. Obviously the engines and armament were not the problem but the air frame was. The Air Ministry had realised that the Spitfire would need special maintenance facilities and trained personnel in the first months of its deployment. We today tend to forget how "modern" the Spitfire would have appeared to airframe riggers and fitters brought up and trained on stringbags of one type or another. They could just about manage the Hurricane which was the end of that line of succession, the Spitfire was the first in an entirely new line.
This is why designated Spitfire bases with the requisite equipment and personnel were established at Hornchurch, Duxford, Biggin Hill and Middle Wallop. Damaged Hurricanes landing at forward airfields could often be repaired there and flown home to their sector airfield and returned to action in hours. The same was not true for the Spitfire which in the early months often had to be dismantled and returned by road to its sector airfield for even minor repair.
This is also why Spitfire squadrons based at forward airfields, like the two at Filton for example, suffered from low serviceability rates. It took a while for personnel to be trained to look after the new types of aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

Good point. Most people forget that the Hurricane was originally called the 'Fury monoplane", based on the existing Fury bi-plane, therefore manufacturers, service people, etc were well used to that sort of structure.
The first 500 Hurricanes actually had fabric wings.
The monocoque Spit was a quantum leap forward, not just in aerodynamics, but in construction..

 

[Aozora]

I can tell you that the RAF did not fare terribly well as squadrons converted from Hurricanes to Spitfires. Obviously the engines and armament were not the problem but the air frame was. The Air Ministry had realised that the Spitfire would need special maintenance facilities and trained personnel in the first months of its deployment. We today tend to forget how "modern" the Spitfire would have appeared to airframe riggers and fitters brought up and trained on stringbags of one type or another. They could just about manage the Hurricane which was the end of that line of succession, the Spitfire was the first in an entirely new line.
This is why designated Spitfire bases with the requisite equipment and personnel were established at Hornchurch, Duxford, Biggin Hill and Middle Wallop. Damaged Hurricanes landing at forward airfields could often be repaired there and flown home to their sector airfield and returned to action in hours. The same was not true for the Spitfire which in the early months often had to be dismantled and returned by road to its sector airfield for even minor repair.
This is also why Spitfire squadrons based at forward airfields, like the two at Filton for example, suffered from low serviceability rates. It took a while for personnel to be trained to look after the new types of aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

True, the transition from Hurricane to Spitfire was not the best example; but what I was saying is that in all air forces the jobs were split into different trades; the electricians were still capable of servicing either the Hurricane or the Spitfire, while the engine specialists could still work on the Merlin and associated systems - there were no mechanics specialising in one aircraft type to the exclusion of any or all others, so there were no "P-47" or "P-38" mechanics or "Hurricane" or "Spitfire" mechanics in the USAAF or RAF respectively.

 

[stona]

True, the transition from Hurricane to Spitfire was not the best example; but what I was saying is that in all air forces the jobs were split into different trades; the electricians were still capable of servicing either the Hurricane or the Spitfire, while the engine specialists could still work on the Merlin and associated systems - there were no mechanics specialising in one aircraft type to the exclusion of any or all others, so there were no "P-47" or "P-38" mechanics or "Hurricane" or "Spitfire" mechanics in the USAAF or RAF respectively.

That is essentially true, but on the introduction of a new type some training would be required. In the case of the Spitfire, which again I agree is a bit of a special case, this did lead to a shortage of personnel and facilities capable of servicing the new aeroplane, apart from at the designated Spitfire bases.
You can imagine a scenario where a Hurricane landed at a forward airfield to be patched up with some doped fabric patches and sent on its way, whereas a Spitfire might land and find that the tools and materials and maybe even expertise to make even a simple repair were not available.
It is also worth saying that these initial problems were largely overcome by the time that the BoB got into full swing.
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=134&v=86WUlBe3gsA


Turning a Spitfire around. The rigger waggles the rudder at around 2 minutes!
Cheers
Steve

 

[Airframes]

Good one - I could almost smell the oil and feel the '4 x 2' !

 

[pbehn]

Good point. Most people forget that the Hurricane was originally called the 'Fury monoplane", based on the existing Fury bi-plane, therefore manufacturers, service people, etc were well used to that sort of structure.
The first 500 Hurricanes actually had fabric wings.
The monocoque Spit was a quantum leap forward, not just in aerodynamics, but in construction..

I think a major difference was the wing structure, the Hurricane was a sort of lattice bolted on to the wing root while the Spitfire had a beam made up of a pair of concentric square tube fastened together with alloy bracing. repairing a wing on the two aircraft was a completely different job requiring different equipment even if the people understood both airframes.

 

[pinehilljoe]

I think it was also a factor of economic capacity. We could afford to try designs, even if some were dead ends.

Factories were tooled for a design and it was expeditious to continue production. And having some of arguably the best airframes and engines in the war helped.

The extreme was the Manhattan Project. No other country could gamble on a program like Manhattan, while fighting a two front war, there was no certainty it would work let alone be completed before the war ended,

 

[swampyankee]

I think it was also a factor of economic capacity. We could afford to try designs, even if some were dead ends.

Factories were tooled for a design and it was expeditious to continue production. And having some of arguably the best airframes and engines in the war helped.

The extreme was the Manhattan Project. No other country could gamble on a program like Manhattan, while fighting a two front war, there was no certainty it would work let alone be completed before the war ended,

The US also had quite a few aircraft companies: Beech, Bell, Bellanca, Boeing, Brewster, Consolidated, Cessna, Curtiss, Douglas, Fairchild, Grumman, Lockheed, Martin, McDonnell, North American, Piper, Republic, Sikorsky, Stinson, Vought, Vultee, possibly more. Each one had a slightly different design philosophy, and no two would design the same aircraft given the exact same specs. Some produced some hot messes (these frequently involved Brewster); some produced mediocrities, some produced great aircraft. Many of them were cutthroat competitors for the commercial market, and became very good at getting aircraft delivered on-time, under budget, and better than the product from the competition.

Each company also had a political constituency, and a staff of engineers who would be easily bored reading somebody else's blueprints.

 

[pbehn]

Throughout the war the USA generally had a competitive aircraft at all altitudes, ranges from land or carrier based aircraft, that is a big variety of designs usually requiring a big variety of designers and companies.

 

[billrunnels]

Speaking of transition, I had a good friend that flew the P-47 on missions with a Unit in the 15 AF ( I think). They changed to P-51 aircraft overnight. I asked him about training in the new equipment. He said they had one classroom session then went to a P-51, was blindfolded, responded to questions regarding location of controls by pointing, removed the blindfold and took off. That was it. He said the first take off scared him big time. He preferred the P-47 because of the protection received from the big engine etc.

 

[pbehn]

Speaking of transition, I had a good friend that flew the P-47 on missions with a Unit in the 15 AF ( I think). They changed to P-51 aircraft overnight. I asked him about training in the new equipment. He said they had one classroom session then went to a P-51, was blindfolded, responded to questions regarding location of control then took off. That was it. He said the first take off scared him big time. He preferred the P-47 because of the protection received from the big engine etc.

If I was flying about with no problems and then someone blindfolded me and put me in another aircraft I may have had some reservations too.

 

[billrunnels]

If I was flying about with no problems and then someone blindfolded me and put me in another aircraft I may have had some reservations too.

The story is hard to believe but this friend's word was good as gold.