Any WWII airplane history experts?

[neilbardsley]

While convalescing I watched a programme on WWII military machinery. It mentioned the He 117 bomber. Which had some interesting engineering developments that could of aided its aerodynamics but was a unsuccessful plane. The engineers tried to drive 4 propellers from 2 engines. While the allied planes where using 4 engines. Only 2 engines meant they had to be a lot more powerful so had cooling issues. Plus they had to be link using prop shafts adding to the complexity. Which is what caught my interest as I thought about the timing gear complexities on the 4 cam flat four engines.

They way I understood it native is that allies where producing Ford quality type military planes but the German's were often trying to produce hand build 550 Spyders. The program suggested that some of this was German firms trying to take advantage or the free R&D memory from Hilter. In the end the allies make many more planes and won?

Can anybody suggest more reading or watching or correct me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_H ... fficulties

[coomo]

Neil,Ive no experience of this specific aircraft.However your summation that Germany produced "Porsche" quality compared to ROW I believe largely correct.One only has to compare a Bren gun,Sten Gun (at a cost of 25 shillings) to the Germans offering of Spad, Steyr Walther etc.The German manufacturers I understand took advantage of the third Reichs open check book policy to arming its troops.
The Tiger was a hideously complicated machine.So much so its propensity to breakdown,it eventually compelled the Nazis to employ service teams, whos sole objective was roaming battlefields servicing them.
The fine line between "satisfactory" engineering & over engineering is obviously never more crucial than during wartime.The AK47 which basically is a spring, is one of the few genius designs that ensured not only reliability & low cost also some degree of effectiveness.In comparison to the M16.Highly accurate yet jammed very easily.
Which brings the biggest dilema.Do I compose my air force of One, one hundred million dollar fighter, or 10,000 Bi planes.

[bjmullan]

I often said that the Russian army nor the British or US Armies won the war but the manufacturing power of the USA. The tank comparison is a good one, just compare the Tiger to the Sherman (nickname the Tommy cooker by the Germans) it was built to a budget in the manner of a mass produced car. The Allies were just able to build more war equipment.

[NurLinks]

I just finished "The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History", by James Holland. An excellent account including some fascinating insights in the differences between British and German planning and manufacturing practices early on in WW II. So, not an answer to your technical question but some very good explanations for the success of the British war machine.

[jwhillracer]

The same sort of thing happened with our own equipment.
The Merlin engine at the start of the war was fastidiously built by Rolls Royce, cost somewhere in the region of £5000 each and produced about 1000bhp. They were a nightmare to service in the field as, for example, each piston was individually fitted to its own cylinder. When the likes of Ford and Packard started to make them, they productionised the process so that greater numbers could be built, and the engines could be more easily serviced and repaired in the field. By the end of the war the Merlin was producing nearly twice the power and only cost in the region of £1200 a unit.

JW

[davep]

I had a friend involved in hydroplane boat racing using a variety of surplus engines. He said that the Merlin and Packard and such were really not designed for servicing. The main reason was the service life of the engine generally exceeded the service life of the aircraft. Some engines needed extensive warming up before use to ensure a sudden increase in power, and subsequent oil pressure, did not destroy weak engine cases. He also told stories of cracking the throttle too fast and either flipping the boat in the water or wrapping the prop into a ball.

[jjeffries]

I recently read "The Magic of a Name" by Paul Pugh, an excellent RR history found in a used book shop in Boston while my kid was on a college tour, which like the book referenced above, drove home just how close a thing the Battle of Britain was, and how the relationships between those in industry, government and the men in-between (eg. Beaverbrook) "got the job done", often overcoming narrow-mindedness and intransigence on the part of, especially, certain individuals of overly fixed opinions.

Also as stated above, the leaps in Merlin output and durability realized by Ford's and Packard's production engineering nous are fascinating to read about. This has been somewhat presaged by R-R's experiences of building cars in Springfield, Massachusetts (thirty miles from where I write) in the 1920's; R-R soon learned that their vertical supply process resulted in their own cars being overly expesnive to build (and sell) - they would have been better-off using more local/USA components - and the realization that American producers such as Lincoln and Buick were rapidly overtaking them with a faster product and production evolution, as compared to R-R's business model of ("just") steadily improving the Ghost.


Indeed, one of the men they'd dispatched to Springfield had gone to work for Packard, but their ongoing respect for him helped ease R-R's discomforts when Beaverbrook basically handed over production rights for the Merlin, with future commercial concerns as yet unresolved. R-R, IMO, acted with admirable selflessness and of course, patriotism, recognizing THE most existential crisis facing Britain was far more important than the question of future royalties....although there were some who considered the latter more important.

The story would make for better business school reading and discussion than the empty, self-serving trollop used to educate today's smart young things.

Thanks for a great thread. John

[Dougieboy1]

unfortunately, i cant remember where i saw it but i recall a documentary which included the fact that german 'equipment' was extremely complicated and as a result, the inherent precision engineering jacked up the cost and the production times. I seem to remember a statement to the effect Allies could build 4 spitfires in the same time it took to build a single 109.....

I see the principle replicated elsewhere. As a long time hobby restorer of military vehicles. I once restored a kettenkrad (often called a half tracked motorcycle - it isnt but its close enough). 2 tracks, 4 links per track, 2 roller bearings per link, each bearing containing something like 30 needle rollers. It took me a year just to restore the tracks. By contrast, Bren gun carrier track links are held together by a simple pin driven through holes in the links. Sure, the kettenkrad track runs nicely and is quieter but neither of these are of any interest when in a vehicle with a lifespan measured in weeks if not days.

I dont know if this is to do with access to R&D budgets or simply the german natural predilection for precision engineering. I suspect the latter, german engineering quality is a long established fact and trying to unlearn that even in war, would be difficult if not impossible as it would require wholesale replacement of design theory, production lines, maintenance facilities.

In war, quantity usually beats quality.

[Tosh]

Indeed, one of the men they'd dispatched to Springfield had gone to work for Packard, but their ongoing respect for him helped ease R-R's discomforts when Beaverbrook basically handed over production rights for the Merlin, with future commercial concerns as yet unresolved. R-R, IMO, acted with admirable selflessness and of course, patriotism, recognizing THE most existential crisis facing Britain was far more important than the question of future royalties....although there were some who considered the latter more important.

I recall reading years ago that one of the reasons for manufacturing decline and the brain drain (as well as the usually cited reasons (unions/investments etc)) was the requirement to hand over tech to the US during and after the war as part of the US war effort & Lend/Lease. The thesis was that the US did really well out of us as well as the German war machine.

[neilbardsley]

Thanks all. As usual the knowledge on here never disappoints

Sent from my Redmi 7 using Tapatalk

[jwhillracer]

When I had my first VW Beetle, I drove it to my Grand-parents' house and parked it in the driveway, with all the innocence of youth.
My Grandfather was in the trenches from November 1914, and was one of the thousands of amazing men who was wounded several times and kept going back for more, until the Army invalided him out, so he joined the Air Force instead! I have the papers showing that he was not passed fit as a pilot, but was passed as an observer...……
Grandpa came out to have a look at the Beetle, walked round it tapped several panels with his knuckle, and said
"They always did have better kit than us", then went back inside and never looked at it again!

JW

[stichill99]

I am always amazed how quickly after the second world war how many German cars were sold both in UK and USA after such a horrific war. My father had a cousin who had been on the infamous Burma railway and as can be understood struggled with people when he came home. He moved from near Edinburgh to a farm on Mull of Kintyre for more solitude. He stayed at Machrahanish across the bay from Paul Macartney but until the day he died in the 1980's he would not allow a Japanese vehicle on the farm and chased quite a few off that were caught unaware!

[jjeffries]

The Karl Ludvigsen book “Battle for the Beetle” is a must- read for those interested in this stuff. Available in paperback.

And yes, the Brain Drain! Who wouldn’t have wanted to leave austerity- strangled post war Britain for the States; I know, not universally appealing but likely was a huge pull.

The recent Space Race/Apollo documentaries covered that; probably German and British engineers working hand in hand and living the post war boom suburban life, cocktails and swimming pools.

My 19 year old son had an excellent history teacher here in Connecticut, ex US Army guy who taught the subject with aplomb and actually discussed this very stuff. He introduced the term “The Zen of Shabbiness” to describe how the Soviet’s took this a step further (from American practice, such as the Sherman tank) to crank out things that were “good enough”.

They of course took it a step further with reverse engineering, although they didn’t have to do that with the seminal Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine, given to them post WW2 to the huge consternation of the Americans.

Great discussion!

[silver911]

Might I add a very narrow and individual view on this; having worked on both RR and Packard Merlins, as well as a BMW radial engine....along with Spitfire airframes, a YAK 3 (Russian built) and an Bucker Bu133 (WW2 Germain trainer) and Bu181.

The engines were all much of a muchness in terms of engineering complexity and 'apparent quality' as we had no way of quantifying the real quality the materials themselves. I'd suggest that the 'best' engine was the Packard-built Merlin as it was the one that went together the most efficiently and effectively to meet the handbook specs. The RR built one, a slightly earlier version, needed more attention and adjustment to meet the handbook specs. On a single engine the difference was not massive, scaled up it would have been significant.

The BMW was more challenging, simply because we did not have as much knowledge of the engine itself, and so we needed to do things more slowly and 'learn' as we went.

In terms of the airframes the Spit was the most complex and 'hand-made'. Admittedly as a complex monocoque that is unsurprising. Whether it was a Mk 1A or a IX or the XIV we had in at the same time, each was definitely unique. Even between the two IXs we had the maintenance panels were not interchangeable, so engine cowlings were individual, access panels (even those for the guns) were all different, the pilot door was tweaked... etc etc.

The YAK 3 was a simple, cheap and cheerful beast in comparison, a mix of welded frame with metal panels and semi-monocoque. Finishing and fitting was much less precise and there were signs of forcing panels to fit. Some had long piano hinges which had been fitted slightly angled to the edge... no worries, just bend the panel a bit to fit the opposite edge, no cutting or other adjustment. We did not have an exact date for the a/c but it was a contemporary of the later Spits.

The Bu was in a different league.... being pre War in conception and build date the fit of the frame and the quality the welding of its frame was very high, better looking and finished than say Tiger Moth or Miles Magister. The control system was more complex and higher quality, cables, turnbuckles, bearings etc all to higher specs. It was challenging to see how this improved quality affected the delivery of the plane's stated purpose : training pilots, as the better feel was only evident to the more experienced pilots, or those who had flown both. The greater number of elements may well have meant higher maintenance requirements, or the better quality would have meant less on-going adjustment and daily fettling. The Bu 133 went to the US shortly after she was completed.

One thing that was universally appreciated was its engine... a different generation than the DH Gipsy Major.... far more advanced and far easier to operate.

Interestingly the Bucker Bu181 produced in 1943 in Rangsdorf was a real mix of quality. The frame was beautifully made, far better than a front section contemporary Hurricane (a metal tubular frame structure) , yet some of the systems were much cruder and had lost the quality seen in the earlier 133. It was challenge to get the rigging symmetrical as some of the fixtures, original ones, were simply of different dimensions between left and right sides, when they 'should' have been identical. Again that went to the US.

Sorry for the long post... just a bit of a previous life escaping....

[hot66]

Wonderful insight into something I know nothing about