Field capacity to repair, overhall, reconstuct, and build airplanes in W.W.I.I.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...

I know people at work who can assemble an engine. Being
able to assemble an engine is very basic to the 'mechanic'.

An aircraft engine is not a car engine. Car engines are heavily
built and with fairly robust tolerances; they are designed to
run almost forever. WWII aircraft engines were running very
close to material limits, and keeping them operational would
be more akin to tuning the engine of a Formula 1 racing car
than to car-type maintenance. They were also extremely complex
by modern standards. These days, assembly of WWII engines is
limited to a handful of specialised workshops.




Why did you write the above? Today, a corporation specialized to
manufacturing small propeller aircraft for the leisure and corporate
market does exist. I bet there is more than one company making
propeller aircraft.
I will Google for a few minutes in a new window.


To give an extreme example, Rolls-Royce once traced back
a series of Vulture engine failures, resulting in fatal crashes,
to the fact that the connecting rod bolts were tightened unevenly
and at a too high tension, exceeding material limits at high rpm.
Every engine had to be removed from the aircraft and sent
back to the factory, where new bolts were installed and tightened
to exact the right tension (which was lower than the original
design value).



Why did you post the above information? Are you supporting the notion
that important and large fighters could not be built on and/or near a
large W.W.I.I. airbase. I don't think every dinky airbase had
manufacturing of complete planes.


Your question specifically referred to assembling a new engine
from parts of *damaged* engines. This would be an extremely
foolhardy procedure, as absence of superficial damage would
by no means guarantuee that parts were still up to design strength.


So there was no recycling? Are you arguing purely from a conceptual
frame of reference?


More stuff for small to medium businesses that make moving metal
parts.

So what? Engines would not merely need acurately turned and
milled parts, they would have to be made of the right alloy and
receive exactly the correct heat and surface treatment. To take
an example of a seemingly simple but extremely demanding part,
the sleeves of Bristol sleeve-valve engines were finished to an
accuracy of two ten-thousandths of an inch in bore, with deviations
of cylindrical shape not exceeding 1/1000 inch over the whole
14-inch length of the sleeve. The process involving milling,
grinding, lapping, and nitritiding to harden the surface. Bristol
actually had to design and build their own tools to succeed in this.



Why can't all of that be done near an airport/airbase? You too are
putting forward and defending the odd concept that it is conceptually
unattainable for planes to be assembled near airports. Are you really
thinking things thru?



The feeder factories are smaller and more numerous than you imagine.

Of course the major engine manufacturers used subcontractors,
hundreds of them, but usually under tight control. The entire
production process was very carefully checked. An Allison
V-1710 had about 7000 parts; but 70,000 inspections were
done, at every stage of production and after the test run, before
the engine was passed. These inspections accounted for 20%
of the workforce.


Are you too putting forward the concept that the USAAF can't gather,
cultivate, and grow the sort of labor you indicate a fighter plane
makers would have?


In fact suitable "feeder factories" were often far too few in
number. A good example is the so-called "Vickers unit", an
hydraulic motor used in Sperry gun turrets, manufactured to
extremely high tolerances to get accurate turret control, and
costing $ 1400 per unit. The Production Engineering Section
of the USAF minuted "it has proven impossible to find a
manufacturing source to augment the two existing sources".
Actually the second of these could play a role only because
the USAF had relaxed the pass criteria for these units; and
at the end of the war attempts to design a replacement part
that was easier to manufacture had not produced useful
results.

http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/florida/e5099a.htm
A manufacture of propeller dirve planes employs 720 workers
at a manufacturing plant. This plant use 99 acres.
It is adjectent to a small airport which is much small that a large
USAAF airbase of WWII.
http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/p2740vrb.htm

I don't understand the conceptual problem some have with warplanes
being assemble, or built, or recycled, or reconstruted, or what have
you
near or on a military base. Many workers at the Piper Plant of Vero
Beach
learned their skills in the US military too. I think a Piper is the
closest thing to
a WWII fighter in commercial production today.

John Freck

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

I know people at work who can assemble an engine. Being
able to assemble an engine is very basic to the 'mechanic'.


How many of them cast their engine block? Or machine the
pistons, valves, etc.?

An aircraft engine is not a car engine. Car engines are heavily
built and with fairly robust tolerances; they are designed to
run almost forever. WWII aircraft engines were running very
close to material limits, and keeping them operational would
be more akin to tuning the engine of a Formula 1 racing car
than to car-type maintenance. They were also extremely complex
by modern standards. These days, assembly of WWII engines is
limited to a handful of specialised workshops.

Why did you write the above? Today, a corporation specialized to
manufacturing small propeller aircraft for the leisure and corporate
market does exist. I bet there is more than one company making
propeller aircraft.
I will Google for a few minutes in a new window.


As soon as you find a "small propeller aircraft" with a
12 cylinder, 1600 cubic inch engine developing 1400 HP with
a mechanical supercharger being manufactured for the leisure
and corporate market, let me know. The largest piston engine
I found in Piper's lineup was a 6 cylinder putting out 300
Horsepower. Not quite in the same league.



So what? Engines would not merely need acurately turned and
milled parts, they would have to be made of the right alloy and
receive exactly the correct heat and surface treatment. To take
an example of a seemingly simple but extremely demanding part,
the sleeves of Bristol sleeve-valve engines were finished to an
accuracy of two ten-thousandths of an inch in bore, with deviations
of cylindrical shape not exceeding 1/1000 inch over the whole
14-inch length of the sleeve. The process involving milling,
grinding, lapping, and nitritiding to harden the surface. Bristol
actually had to design and build their own tools to succeed in this.

Why can't all of that be done near an airport/airbase? You too are
putting forward and defending the odd concept that it is conceptually
unattainable for planes to be assembled near airports. Are you really
thinking things thru?


I don't think that YOU are thinking things through. How many engine
factories do you think you're going to have building Merlins? There
were (many) dozens of airfields spread throughout England. The wasted
manpower to operate these proposed small scale factories would be
astronomical. Now add in every other major component that you want
to have produced locally. You end up using about 40 times the
manpower to build less than half the components. Wars are affairs
of logistics, and trying to build your weapons and equipment in
place is a pretty quick way to fritter away your resources.


Are you too putting forward the concept that the USAAF can't gather,
cultivate, and grow the sort of labor you indicate a fighter plane
makers would have?


It would presumably be POSSIBLE (theoretically, anyways), but
as I noted above, the only people I'd suggest this to would
be the enemy. Aside from the low production rate, you'd need
a labor force many times the size of your actual operational
units. Imagine over a thousand highly skilled engineers,
machinists, etc., to support a fighter squadron, and able to
supply fewer replacements than the existing supply system at
maybe 10 several times the cost, which can't build up a stockpile
and have to halt production for several weeks to
upgrade when they move to a more powerful mark of the same engine.



http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/florida/e5099a.htm
A manufacture of propeller dirve planes employs 720 workers
at a manufacturing plant. This plant use 99 acres.
It is adjectent to a small airport which is much small that a large
USAAF airbase of WWII.
http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/p2740vrb.htm

I don't understand the conceptual problem some have with warplanes
being assemble, or built, or recycled, or reconstruted, or what have
you
near or on a military base. Many workers at the Piper Plant of Vero
Beach
learned their skills in the US military too. I think a Piper is the
closest thing to
a WWII fighter in commercial production today.


OK, so you've got 720 people and about 100 acres to provide the
propellers for your aircraft - If you've got another aircraft on
the base with a different propeller, you're up to nearly 1500 people
and 200 acres. Now all you need is an engine, guns (don't forget the
ammunition, with its associated chemical industry), airframe,
instruments, canopy, tires, seat belt, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A
single fighter unit would have a support industry on the order of
the entire Ninth Air Force in personnel.

By the way, this small propeller shop you note- I take it that
it provides propellors for the aircraft operating out of that
nearby airport? How many factories did they build to supply the
propellors to the airports at the next city over?

Mike

I know people at work who can assemble an engine. Being
able to assemble an engine is very basic to the 'mechanic'.


How many of them cast their engine block? Or machine the
pistons, valves, etc.?

I believe that Ken Hyde and the lads at the Wright Experience did just
that for the engine of their Wright Flyer. To be sure, that was
(literally) a once-in-a-century effort.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Michael Williamson wrote in message ...



Did ground crew, repair and reconstructions centers near or on
airbases, during BoB contribute mightily to the daily strenght report
for the BoB? Personally, I don't know what organizations issued new
serial numbers to new planes. However, I have read many short comments
flattering Hurricane, in particular, ground support crews and airbase
repair factilites. To 'repair', to 'overall' (do you know exactly
what an overhall is?), to 'reconstruct', to 'assemble', and to 'buid'
and 'rebuild' are all standard to mechanics' job descriptions. As as
field munufacture of parts? I listened to an interview of a veteran
who served in the SW Pacific in 1942 who said that he personally
participated in making spare engine parts. In an example he gave, he
described making a new piston for an engine that had lost a piston in
action.



John Freck wrote:



How many of them cast their engine block? Or machine the
pistons, valves, etc.?



The question is what are general and specifc examples of the
sophistication of ground support crews, and other factilities near or
on large Allied airbases in England. Could a repair center cast an
engine block? Those that did; where the located near a major airbase?
Of course, new construction from a large final assemble plant needs
a runway.

Snip


I don't think that YOU are thinking things through. How many engine
factories do you think you're going to have building Merlins? There
were (many) dozens of airfields spread throughout England. The wasted
manpower to operate these proposed small scale factories would be
astronomical. Now add in every other major component that you want
to have produced locally. You end up using about 40 times the
manpower to build less than half the components. Wars are affairs
of logistics, and trying to build your weapons and equipment in
place is a pretty quick way to fritter away your resources.


You don't seem to be exploring specifically what sorts of maintenace
were done to boost Hurricane strenght by ground maintenace. It reads
to me like the Hurricane production could readily be "farmed out" to a
large number of small factories. I am saying that ground support
should be able to assemble, build and rebuild engines, recycle, and
reconstruct. Those activities contributed mightly to total strenght,
maybe not new serial numbers, on a dialy basis. So to tighten my
thesis exploration:

1) During the BoB did Hurricane ground maintenace boost daily
Hurricane strenght?
If so? What methods? For example, can ground maintenace assemble an
engine
from parts delivered to a base? Can ground support assemble a plane?

2) Did any of the small factories that recieved "farmed out" contracts
also supply airbases with spare parts?
Did aribases consume spare parts? Where these factories near or on
airbases? To what extent was the civial aviation maintenance industry
tapped to boost parts production? Today, has I have shown aviation
maintenace does exist near airports and some manufacture aviation
parts.

So? Then, is the aviation near or on airports? YES. It is that
simple.
I bet most of the feeder factories were near airbases if the civialian
industry was taken over by the military, then you can bet ...



Are you too putting forward the concept that the USAAF can't gather,
cultivate, and grow the sort of labor you indicate a fighter plane
makers would have?


It would presumably be POSSIBLE (theoretically, anyways), but
as I noted above, the only people I'd suggest this to would
be the enemy. Aside from the low production rate, you'd need
a labor force many times the size of your actual operational
units. Imagine over a thousand highly skilled engineers,
machinists, etc., to support a fighter squadron, and able to
supply fewer replacements than the existing supply system at
maybe 10 several times the cost, which can't build up a stockpile
and have to halt production for several weeks to
upgrade when they move to a more powerful mark of the same engine.


Bull****. Provide evidense that today's aviation maintenace industry
isn't organized around airports and that these sorts of business don't
make parts in direct support of the companies like Boeing.
I have provided ample evidense that today the industry is organized
like I suggest the WWII military organize military aircraft production
and maintenance. You were completely ignorant of civilian aviations
maintenacne having parts manufacturing capacity, and there being a
final assemble plant right here in Florida which is of course, near a
civialian airport.



http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/florida/e5099a.htm
A manufacture of propeller dirve planes employs 720 workers
at a manufacturing plant. This plant use 99 acres.
It is adjectent to a small airport which is much small that a large
USAAF airbase of WWII.
http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/p2740vrb.htm

I don't understand the conceptual problem some have with warplanes
being assemble, or built, or recycled, or reconstruted, or what have
you
near or on a military base. Many workers at the Piper Plant of Vero
Beach
learned their skills in the US military too. I think a Piper is the
closest thing to
a WWII fighter in commercial production today.


OK, so you've got 720 people and about 100 acres to provide the
propellers for your aircraft - If you've got another aircraft on
the base with a different propeller, you're up to nearly 1500 people
and 200 acres. Now all you need is an engine, guns (don't forget the
ammunition, with its associated chemical industry), airframe,
instruments, canopy, tires, seat belt, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A
single fighter unit would have a support industry on the order of
the entire Ninth Air Force in personnel.

Now you are miscasting me, deliberaly. An airbase with robust ground
maintenace, and a robust civilain avaition maintenance industry
near-by converted to military work can make parts, recieve parts,
recycle parts, and assemble airplanes. No, No, no... Not all parts
must be made from utter scratch raw material. The big main factories
of Boeing don't do that either and I know and pointed that out. As a
matter of fact, the situation u in Vero Beach with Piper is just what
I am claiming existed in WWII.

I am merely claiming that similar things done today were also done
yesteryear.


By the way, this small propeller shop you note- I take it that
it provides propellors for the aircraft operating out of that
nearby airport? How many factories did they build to supply the
propellors to the airports at the next city over?

The propeller shop is Piper's final assemble factory.
This factory supplies parts to the whole world.
They have feeder business all over the world, I would imagine.


John Freck




Mike

I'm kind of starting this thread over.

The USAAF established maintenance depots called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Base
Air Depots at Burtonwood, Warton and Langford Lodge. For typical activities
see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...ro/facts.shtml

and the related links found on those pages.

These were the sites for heavy maintenance for aircraft and ground support
equipment.

In addition there were Strategic Air Depots designed to do the same tasks on
a smaller scale (Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe). These were
located at Honington, Little Staughton, Watton and Wattisham (1st SAD, 2nd
SAD, 3rd SAD, 4th SAD with a 5th SAD later located in France. These were
the

These depots serviced both US and UK aircraft.

A little selective Googling on these names will give you additional history.

Source: USAAF HANDBOOK 1939-1945 by Martin W Bowman and Google.

As you will see, these organizations were highly developed and the
'blacksmith shop' approach envisioned earlier in the thread was not a
necessary thing although local innovation may have resulted in numerous 'war
stories'.

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...
I'm kind of starting this thread over.

The USAAF established maintenance depots called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Base
Air Depots at Burtonwood, Warton and Langford Lodge. For typical
activities
see:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...ro/facts.shtml

and the related links found on those pages.

These were the sites for heavy maintenance for aircraft and ground support
equipment.

In addition there were Strategic Air Depots designed to do the same tasks
on
a smaller scale (Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe). These
were
located at Honington, Little Staughton, Watton and Wattisham (1st SAD, 2nd
SAD, 3rd SAD, 4th SAD with a 5th SAD later located in France. These were
the

These depots serviced both US and UK aircraft.

A little selective Googling on these names will give you additional
history.

Source: USAAF HANDBOOK 1939-1945 by Martin W Bowman and Google.

As you will see, these organizations were highly developed and the
'blacksmith shop' approach envisioned earlier in the thread was not a
necessary thing although local innovation may have resulted in numerous
'war
stories'.


Thanks Tex

I've already pointed to Mr Freck that the RAF established a specialist
repair organisation for aircraft damaged beyond the ability of the
squadron's to repair them in 1940.

Marshalls at Cambridge repaired or rebuilt over 5000 aircraft
during the war and still are a major repairer doing work for
both the civil and military sector.

They were test flying one of the RAF's new C-130's today in fact.

Keith

In message , Keith Willshaw
writes

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...
I'm kind of starting this thread over.

The USAAF established maintenance depots called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Base
Air Depots at Burtonwood, Warton and Langford Lodge. For typical
activities
see:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...an_connection/
burtonwood/intro/facts.shtml

and the related links found on those pages.

These were the sites for heavy maintenance for aircraft and ground support
equipment.

In addition there were Strategic Air Depots designed to do the same tasks
on
a smaller scale (Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe). These
were
located at Honington, Little Staughton, Watton and Wattisham (1st SAD, 2nd
SAD, 3rd SAD, 4th SAD with a 5th SAD later located in France. These were
the

These depots serviced both US and UK aircraft.

A little selective Googling on these names will give you additional
history.

Source: USAAF HANDBOOK 1939-1945 by Martin W Bowman and Google.

As you will see, these organizations were highly developed and the
'blacksmith shop' approach envisioned earlier in the thread was not a
necessary thing although local innovation may have resulted in numerous
'war
stories'.


Thanks Tex

I've already pointed to Mr Freck that the RAF established a specialist
repair organisation for aircraft damaged beyond the ability of the
squadron's to repair them in 1940.

Marshalls at Cambridge repaired or rebuilt over 5000 aircraft
during the war and still are a major repairer doing work for
both the civil and military sector.

I wonder if that's the same Marshalls who made my Flight Sergeant groan
and hold his head in his hands when he found out that a new A/C had come
from Marshalls?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

"Tex Houston" wrote in message ...


I'm kind of starting this thread over.

The USAAF established maintenance depots called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Base
Air Depots at Burtonwood, Warton and Langford Lodge. For typical activities
see:

What you bring is just what I'm describing but huge and not small: *I
never said the USA and UK militaries couldn't have huge repair,
construction, assemble, and parts manufacturing.*



http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...ro/facts.shtml

Quite interesting that the RAF and USAFF were able to muster large
scale, I had only put forward small-scale,
labor, technological, industrial, and financial gaints. This
facialities had to be near major airbases? It is itself a military
facility or a manufacturers' facility?


and the related links found on those pages.

These were the sites for heavy maintenance for aircraft and ground support
equipment.

In addition there were Strategic Air Depots designed to do the same tasks on
a smaller scale (Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe). These were
located at Honington, Little Staughton, Watton and Wattisham (1st SAD, 2nd
SAD, 3rd SAD, 4th SAD with a 5th SAD later located in France. These were
the

Thank-you Tex. Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe. My
only mistake, I'm gonna pay dearly for it too just see, is that I was
so timid as to put forward only "small factories" on major bases. Now
I have catagorical evidense of large-scale conprensive repair,
recycling, reconstruciton of all manner of aircraft all at once
occuring at one major air base and text stating smaller versions
existed on many bases.

My detractors will now claim a victory. ****ing fags they must be,
and on drugs too, I bet.

John Freck













These depots serviced both US and UK aircraft.

A little selective Googling on these names will give you additional history.

Source: USAAF HANDBOOK 1939-1945 by Martin W Bowman and Google.

As you will see, these organizations were highly developed and the
'blacksmith shop' approach envisioned earlier in the thread was not a
necessary thing although local innovation may have resulted in numerous 'war
stories'.

Tex Houston

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...


I'm kind of starting this thread over.

The USAAF established maintenance depots called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Base
Air Depots at Burtonwood, Warton and Langford Lodge. For typical
activities
see:

What you bring is just what I'm describing but huge and not small: *I
never said the USA and UK militaries couldn't have huge repair,
construction, assemble, and parts manufacturing.*


Actually you claimed they had what you described as 'mini-mills'




http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/local...ro/facts.shtml

Quite interesting that the RAF and USAFF were able to muster large
scale, I had only put forward small-scale,

Quite so and you were wrong

labor, technological, industrial, and financial gaints. This
facialities had to be near major airbases?

In WW2 ANY point in Southern England was near a major
airbase, there are 4 ex airbases within 5 miles of my house
Bassingbourn, Tempsford, Gransden Lodge and Bourn

It is itself a military
facility or a manufacturers' facility?


Sometimes but in the UK it was most often a civilian
specialist aircraft repair company like Marshall's


and the related links found on those pages.

These were the sites for heavy maintenance for aircraft and ground
support
equipment.

In addition there were Strategic Air Depots designed to do the same
tasks on
a smaller scale (Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe). These
were
located at Honington, Little Staughton, Watton and Wattisham (1st SAD,
2nd
SAD, 3rd SAD, 4th SAD with a 5th SAD later located in France. These
were
the

Thank-you Tex. Burtonwood was the largest air base in Europe. My
only mistake, I'm gonna pay dearly for it too just see, is that I was
so timid as to put forward only "small factories" on major bases. Now
I have catagorical evidense of large-scale conprensive repair,
recycling, reconstruciton of all manner of aircraft all at once
occuring at one major air base and text stating smaller versions
existed on many bases.


But not manufacture from scratch which was your claim

My detractors will now claim a victory. ****ing fags they must be,
and on drugs too, I bet.


How Juvenile

Keith

In article ,
says...

My detractors will now claim a victory. ****ing fags they must be,
and on drugs too, I bet.


At this I finially dismiss you as a petty troll not worth the electrons to
insult.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.