F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
.co.uk:



buff82driver wrote:


http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-

bz.

nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of (supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.

DS

Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.



That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS

The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000 feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo

Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
r.co.uk:



buff82driver wrote:


http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-

bz.

nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of
very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things
were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of
(supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.

DS

Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas
on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.



That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what
gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff,
most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits
already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS

The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive
bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition
the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and
the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000
feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive
than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need
was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on
stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo

Can you recommend any British primary source, or at least British
authored material detailing the events leading to P-51 development. I
find it very interesting that the development of one of the US's best
pieces of military hardware grew out of a (rather desperate) British
requirement.

DS

DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
.uk:



DeepSea wrote:


Ricardo wrote in
er.co.uk:




buff82driver wrote:



http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-

bz.


nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of

very

tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things

were

the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of

(supporting)

airframe modifications that made it great.

DS

Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas

on

the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.



That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what

gave

the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff,

most

of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits

already

had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS

The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive

bombing

was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition

the

dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and

the

service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000

feet

above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive

than

if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need

was

for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on

stream

that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo


Can you recommend any British primary source, or at least British
authored material detailing the events leading to P-51 development. I
find it very interesting that the development of one of the US's best
pieces of military hardware grew out of a (rather desperate) British
requirement.

DS

Hi DS,

I'm afraid I can't pinpoint any specific British source about the early
days, but try the sites shown here where you will find a lot of
interesting information - not least about US attitudes at that time. The
Wikipedia summary under 'genesis' is probably the best with regard to
British involvement.

The book 'Classic Aircraft Fighters' by Bill Gunston, ISBN 0 600 349950
- 1978 - also gives useful information.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.htm
http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#Genesis
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_1.html

Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.

I hope this helps.

Ricardo

In message , Ricardo
writes
Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.

On the other hand, I heard - from "old factory hands" lecturing on
manufacturing technique at Highbury College in 1988 - that a big
difference between Packard and Rolls-Royce was in fitting the cylinder
head.

Rolls-Royce used a precision hand-scraped metal-to-metal fit. Very
effective, though extremely demanding in scarce skilled labour.
(Attempting to 'file flat' is a useful exercise for a trainee mechanical
engineer; it teaches a certain humility in demanding surface finishes)

Packard cleaned up the castings, milled the mating faces approximately
flat (at least, compared to a metal-metal seal) and put a gasket between
them. I don't recall hearing tales of P-51s routinely or regularly
falling from the skies when their engines failed, nor of the Packard
Spitfires being execrated for unreliability (or, for that matter, lack
of horsepower).


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Ricardo
writes
:Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
:whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
:version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
:composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
:engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.
:
:On the other hand, I heard - from "old factory hands" lecturing on
:manufacturing technique at Highbury College in 1988 - that a big
:difference between Packard and Rolls-Royce was in fitting the cylinder
:head.
:
:Rolls-Royce used a precision hand-scraped metal-to-metal fit. Very
:effective, though extremely demanding in scarce skilled labour.
Attempting to 'file flat' is a useful exercise for a trainee mechanical
:engineer; it teaches a certain humility in demanding surface finishes)
:
:Packard cleaned up the castings, milled the mating faces approximately
:flat (at least, compared to a metal-metal seal) and put a gasket between
:them. I don't recall hearing tales of P-51s routinely or regularly
:falling from the skies when their engines failed, nor of the Packard
:Spitfires being execrated for unreliability (or, for that matter, lack
f horsepower).

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

In article ,
wrote:

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.

Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
the early war versions.

"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:04:23 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.

Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
the early war versions.

"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.

And we kept a good handle on when 'good enough' was in fact good
enough.

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article ,
wrote:
:
: Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
: Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
: folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
: the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
: 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.
:
:Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.
:
:Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
:They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
:the early war versions.
:
:"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
:us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.

Just as soon as you can convince me that handguns can stop tanks and
bombers I'll be more than happy to dismount. Until then, there is no
evidence that I am aware of that what you describe for small arms ever
happened with armor or airplanes.

As for the bombing, until something like the final six months of the
war German production was still going up. All the evidence I've heard
says we spent more bombing them than they spent trying to stop us and
fixing industry that we hit. This was true for RAF bombing (because
they just didn't hit much other than civilians very effectively) and
for US bombing (because our losses were so high going in in the
daytime).

--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.

Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
the early war versions.

"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.

Well, I don't know when mine was built but I do know that it
certainly was no precision piece of shootin 'arn for sure...it
worked ok but didn't look to be 'well made'
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.

Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
the early war versions.


The German record was very mixed

They certainly become very efficient at manufacturing light weapons,
the MG-42 was a classic design that was simple , reliable and
excellent. Trouble is they also made plenty of monstrously complex
weapons systems. The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of
technically advanced weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in
the numbers needed due to the complexity of their manufacture.

"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.


Trouble is even Britain outproduced Germany for much of the war
with fewer natural resources and we WERE being bombed.
Bombing didnt seriously disrupt the German manufacture of weapons
until mid 1943 by which time the tide of war had turned. The allies
decided in many cases to accept technically inferior weapons
if they could be more easily mass produced

Compare Battle tank production in 1943

Germany 3,000 Mk 4, 3,800 Panthers, 650 Tigers
USA 21,000 M4 Sherman

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----