Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?

[yulzari]

Yes the Spitfire was designed at the very beginning of the stressed skin construction becoming de rigeur, some years before the Lancaster. But, more significantly, it was expecting an order of just a few hundred and that spread over quite some time and from a small flying boat factory. It was cheaper and easier to rely upon the skill of the work force than invest in capital machinery and large new factory. Mass production in the overall company was the province of Vickers who owned Supermarine. We can see something similar at Rolls Royce who planned the Merlin production initially around a similar situation. The shadow factory system was rushed into place when it became clear that one would be looking at production in thousands but the design was already fixed. The Lancaster was designed to be built in thousands in new factories (or cleared out factories) and major sub contractors by largely semi skilled labour.

To ascribe a deficiency in production design between the Spitfire and Lancaster is, to some extent, comparing apples with oranges. Each of them was a conscious and reasoned decision awhich matched their different circumstances.

A comparison with the Hawker group is midway in the mid 1930s. They had the experience and production capacity to offer and supply larger numbers faster and had chosen a construction system which they had already used in quantity. It was not by accident that the RAF relied upon mass made Hurricanes rather than Spitfires in the BoB nor is it insignificant that the Hurricane was not only made by licencees in Yugoslavia and Belgium but that licences were purchased by other countries.It needed special tools to make the tube and joints but the work was better suited to less able labour. I have not found even estimate figures but the Vickers Venom structure looks far more production friendly than the Spitfire, coming from the mass production company of the Vickers group and in stressed skin construction rather than the company geodesic one.

Before one criticises the Spitfire production costs one has to see them with a 1935 eye not a 1941 one. The apparent artisan approach to the Spitfire these days translates into the increasing number of 'restored' Spitfires flying and on display today.

 

[MiTasol]

Before one criticises the Spitfire production costs one has to see them with a 1935 eye not a 1941 one. The apparent artisan approach to the Spitfire these days translates into the increasing number of 'restored' Spitfires flying and on display today.

I agree totally. How about we do look at them with a 1935 eye. Much of what applies to the Lancaster also applies to the Blenheim. Primarily pressed metal structure, fuselage and wings in convenient sections, etc.

On 12 April 1935, the Type 142, named Britain First, conducted its first flight. That became the Type 142M Blenheim.

Eleven months later on 5 March 1936 the Spitfire had its first flight, five days before the Fairey Battle that, like the Lanc and Blenheim, used pressed metal for the majority of its primary structure.

And on 21 June 1936, three months after the Spitfire, the Hampden flew and from what I can see it also used pressed metal for the vast majority of primary structure.

Only the Spitfire was a wooden aeroplane built in metal.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Hi
The book 'The Air War 1939-1945' by R J Overy, page 150, has some comparisons:
View attachment 846652
Mike

Every time I see tables of War Production, its makes you think how irrational it was for the Axis to start the War

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I agree totally. How about we do look at them with a 1935 eye. Much of what applies to the Lancaster also applies to the Blenheim. Primarily pressed metal structure, fuselage and wings in convenient sections, etc.

On 12 April 1935, the Type 142, named Britain First, conducted its first flight. That became the Type 142M Blenheim.

Eleven months later on 5 March 1936 the Spitfire had its first flight, five days before the Fairey Battle that, like the Lanc and Blenheim, used pressed metal for the majority of its primary structure.

And on 21 June 1936, three months after the Spitfire, the Hampden flew and from what I can see it also used pressed metal for the vast majority of primary structure.

Only the Spitfire was a wooden aeroplane built in metal.

Actually a wooden boat, a flying boat to be specific. Supermarine was a pioneer in stressed metal construction when they produced a stressed metal hull for their Southampton flying boat way back in 1927. This is one of the first successful applications and predates most efforts. Supermarine was a very small company with limited resources and they wisely choose to stick with their proven method of construction. They already had enough on their plate trying to develop the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. Their parent company Vickers Armstrong couldn't help as they were using the Wibault method for their metals skinned aircraft which was not stressed skin. VAs first true stressed skin aircraft was the Venom which flew after the Spitfire. I am intrigued by the idea of a geodetic Spitfire but I don't think that it would have worked in practice.

 

[MiTasol]

Thank you for introducing me to the Wibault company and its designs. I had never heard of the company before and see that, unlike most French aircraft, it products were not severely beaten with the ugly stick during gestation.

 

[nuuumannn]

Much of what applies to the Lancaster also applies to the Blenheim.

Funny you should say that, because the Blenheim was the first all-metal stressed skin aircraft that the Avro work force had mass produced. It had a greater influence on Manchester/Lancaster production than is often recognised. When Avro first built the Blenheim under licence, the most modern aircraft it had built was the Avro 652/652A Anson, which, structurally was based on the Avro Ten, a licence built Fokker F.VII/3m, with wooden wing, steel tube fuse covered in fabric. The Blenheim brought all-metal fabrication to Avro.