Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi,
In addition to what others have already posted I belive there are a number of issues that can also play a part, including (potentially) some of the following;
With regards to the first bullet, somewhere I once read that the Hawker Hurrican was easir to build and easier to repair in some cases than the Supermarine Spitfire because its wings were simpler in form than those on the Spitfire, where individual panels could potentially have curvature in two directions, making it more time consuming to both manufacture and replace in the event of damage.
- Limiting compound curvatures
- Elimination, or simplification of wing fillets
- Reduction in number of parts
- Easy access to internal areas
With respect to the second bullet, many low wing aircraft (especially single engine ones) often had fillets with compound curvature in way of where the wing root meets the fuselage (see for example the P-40, Spitfire, SBD, TBD, Hurricane, etc). Other planes, however, including many mid wing planes instead had there wing roots intersect the fuselage at a sharp 90 degree (or near 90 degree) angle, such as the Corsair, Wildcat, Hellcat, Buffalo, TBF and the like). The elimination of needing to fit the fillets (which the complex, compound curvature shapes) would theorectically reduce the time required for both building and potentially repair as well.
With respect to the third bullet, although not airplane related, I once bought a car which was in its last model year of production, and in looking through it you could see several areas where the company that built it worked to simplify the design to cut down on the number of individual steps required to assemble it. The main one that stuck out to me being that instead of having a 60/40 split fold-down rear seat, the rear seat back was one single piece that could be folded down. While it might not seem like replacing the two smaller sections of seat back with one larger one would make a whole lot of difference, in reality it meant that on the production line, you only had to install (and align) two hinges instead four, which cuts out several steps in the process.
For an airplane, a similar situation could be something as simple as leaving a tail wheel non-retractable, instead of having to fit the mechanism, controls, and potentially hinged doors, that a retractable wheel would/could require.
And finally, with respect to the last bullet, issues such as the thickness of a wing may potentially make it easier/or harder to fit (and repair) items internal to the wing such as guns, control cables, fuel tanks (and protective coverings), etc
Regards
Pat
PS. Also with respect to the A6M I believe that I read somewhere that to help lighten the plane as much as possible many of the larger structural members had "lightening hole" cut outs in them, which takes time to cut or form than webframes without lightening holes.
Something I was about to bring up but you beat me to it.I wonder what the cost of tooling up 6 different production lines was?
The goings on of the Air Ministry and the RAF are amusing at times. Did they do such an investigation into such things before they issued the first order for 300 Spitfires? Did anyone consider that if war did come they would need thousands per year not hundreds? Part of the design problem Mitchell had was fitting 8 Mgs into the design, the Bf 109 didnt have this issue. In choosing the design Mitchell did, the Spitfire could eventually fit canon in the wings with blisters, And then there is the thorny issue of gun heating, requested after the contract was placed. Oh and can we have a long range PR version please? Almost the moment war was declared they all sides realised they were blacked out from news about the opposition, especially their fleets, nothing could be more obvious or logical as a consequence of declaring war, yet no one did anything about it until it happened.It is a good question. The 109 and the Spitfire were very close in performance. Yet the 109 was designed to be easily built but this was a secondary concern for the Spitfire. When the British had the opportunity to closely examine the 109 they were very complimentary about the various features built into the design of the 109 that made it easier to build and maintain.
The following may be of interest
View attachment 698576View attachment 698577View attachment 698578View attachment 698579View attachment 698580View attachment 698581
Whose job was to make sure that guns function between SL and service ceiling - costumer's or manufaturer's?And then there is the thorny issue of gun heating, requested after the contract was placed.
In my opinion the customer, the plane maker neither makes guns nor specifies which guns are needed.Whose job was to make sure that guns function between SL and service ceiling - costumer's or manufaturer's?
In my opinion the customer, the plane maker neither makes guns nor specifies which guns are needed.
Well some guns didnt work anyway regardless of how well they were heated, sometimes the fault of the gun, sometimes the fault of lubricants used or poor maintainance, When guns didnt fire under high G loading the solution was with the gun orientation and feeding, a plane manufacturer can be involved in the discussion but it cant start re designing the guns or the feed, if they do the gun manufacturer isnt responsible for what happens next.Spin it anyway you want, and have a good life.
It depended on the contract. In the US sometimes the government dictated certain equipment to be installed on the aircraft (like guns)Whose job was to make sure that guns function between SL and service ceiling - costumer's or manufaturer's?
Fighter aircraft, like Spitfire, tended to have guns installed.It depended on the contract. In the US sometimes the government dictated certain equipment to be installed on the aircraft (like guns)
Yes, but who directed the installation? .303s or 20mm or whatever the manufacturer feels like?Fighter aircraft, like Spitfire, tended to have guns installed.
If these don't work at 25000 ft on one aircraft, while work on another aircraft, who botched the job: costumer, or manufacturer of a said fighter?
S/R did guns become more sensitive? Maybe changes to get a better rate of fire? In WW1 guns were outside the cowl or even on the upper wing?In the mid 30s next to nobody was specifying gun heaters.
1, Nobody was flying much higher than they did in WW I and if they did they fly for long at that altitude.
View attachment 698708
for the British
View attachment 698709
Went into first squadron service in Feb 1937.
Note that fuselage mounted guns already had heaters.
Also not that the British, in the 1930s, often only carried out gunnery practice once or twice a year and usually in good weather (summer or at least not winter) and the target towing planes were not flying at high altitude. They simply didn't have the experience to tell them they needed heat for the guns.
The Americans were no better. The .50 cal guns didn't work in the early P-40s for several reasons despite a single .50 being mounted, supposedly as "standard" since about 1930 in most US fighters, both army and navy. 10 years and the British were the ones that discover it didn't work as a cowl gun? (won't get into the wing guns)