"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"John Freck" wrote in message
om...

A question has come up on anoouhter thread: Did airbases during
W.W.I.I have mini-factories near-by able to assemble airplanes from a
combination of recylced parts, mini-milled machine parts (ferrous
parts and aluminium parts, but not organic parts), and new spare
parts?

Small repairs and installation of spare parts were of course
possible; but if parts were needed for major repairs the
common practice was to cannibalize existing airframes,
not to manufacture new parts. The British had mobile salvage
and repair teams, which would either repair aircraft they
collected or return them to the factory for major repair.
Late in the war, the USAF would be more inclined to send
seriously damaged aircraft to the junkyard, the cost of shipping
them back being prohibitive and new aircraft relatively plentiful.
The life of a combat aircraft tended to be quite short.

Of course, in theatres were new equipment was short, such
as the CBI, maintenance personnel would often improvise,
cannibalising as much as possible and assemble aircraft for
various parts. A famous example was the DC-3 fitted with
one DC-2 wing...

In addition, I have heard that on US aircraft carriers any metal
aircraft part can be made on board using furnances and milling tools
right on board: Is this so today? Was this so in W.W.I.I. ?

Considering how many metal parts for aircraft are manufactured
today, I doubt that the Navy would even contemplate it. The
manufacture of load-bearing metal parts for aircraft is far
from simple; seemingly minor errors in the treatment of the metal
can have fatal consequences. (Favorite tricks of the slave-workers
employed by the Germans late in the war; that is why their
aircraft were so horribly unreliable.) The salty seaborne
environment would only stimulate corrosion. And the notion
of doing chemical milling of large wing structures on board of
a warship seems absurd.

During WWII construction techniques were simpler, but the jigs
and tools needed for major airframe work were still too bulky for
a carrier. Besides, during operations aircraft damaged beyond
speedy repair, or rendered unsafe for storage, were simply
thrown overboard -- allowing the carrier to be cluttered by
inoperational airframes would only endanger it. Of course
crews had to be able to patch up minor damage.

How sophisticated and massive was aircraft maintence?
Could they assemble a warplane?

It depends. You have to keep in mind that the wartime air forces
had grown very rapidly, especially the USAF; many new recruits
to the job would only have received specialized training and mainly
have been taught to 'inspect and replace if necessary.' But there
were also experienced engineers who would be able to assemble
new aircraft in the field, not from loose parts -- that would require
a factory with jigs -- but from transport kits or cannibalized units,
and there were field representatives of the manufacturers to support
(or stop) local modification work. Items such as gun installations,
bomb racks, access panels, were all subject to local modifications,
which later could be adopted by the production. There were also
many officially mandated modifications to be retro-fitted to the
aircraft.

In the USAF major work, however, was usually not done on base
but in modification centres, which took a position in between the
factory and the operational unit. They would receive aircraft
from the factory (sometimes without armament and such) and
modify them to the latest technical and combat standard, before
sending them on. Occasionally these too would undertake fairly
major design work, such as the 'Cheyenne' tail stinger of the
late B-17 (named after the modification center that designed it)
and the installation of the first nose turrets in B-24s.

Could they make a new engine using badly damaged engines
as the raw material?

Normal procedure was return to manufacturer and install
a replacement engine. Assembly of new engines was beyond
what would be possible on-base, and assembling one from
parts of damaged engines would be inviting disaster.


I think you must not be mechanically inclined. I don't know about
other industrial nations, but the USA is deep in mechanics. Mechanics
in the USA can make over $25/hr and with good amounts of over-time can
take home over $60,000. This means that they can have espeniive
hobbys. Just take a look at what you can get if you have a strong
middle class income and a willing to dispose of it. Small business
can make airplane parts, and assemble planes. I know people at work
who can assemble an engine. Being able to assemble an engine is very
basic to the 'mechanic'.

http://www.locatoronline.com/locator/lowcost/
Above are the types of machines one could find on any airfield during
WWII.

http://www.southern-tool.com/store/metal_working.html
More stuff in the range of small business.

http://www.machineryvalues.com/
More stuff for small to medium businesses that make moving metal
parts.

The feeder factories are smaller and more numerous than you imagine.
You might be a fine bookworm, but your books by book bond
not-in-touch-with-skilled-labor
facts-of-life authors have mislead you to a poor understanding of the
relationships amoung small to large business-to-business relationships
in machine manufacturing. You must be imagining one super large
business that does it all by itself and little folk are just so so so
far behind. Mechanics are more than you imagine, or can imagine.

John Freck