F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

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.

"Jack Love" wrote in message
...
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.


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

One of the extreme examples of this was the engine cooling fan on
tigers(?) - it was machined out of a single piece of aluminum. - Took lots
of precision machining.

US tanks had a standard car fan - stamped steel blades riveted to the
pulley. - Took 5 stamps, 10 rivets, and mumble mumble machining on the
pulley assembly. MUCH cheaper and easier.

(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 =----

In article , "Keith W"
wrote:

"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

Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things,
but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany,
"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards".
That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective, and as
I pointed out, there are definite examples of German industry
reducing their quality standards to meet production demands.

cheers

PS: now that the Hobbit's (Rooney) out, what will England do?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:


PS: now that the Hobbit's (Rooney) out, what will England do?

Try and win some football without a spoilt brat throwing tantrums on the
pitch and verbally abusing the match officials when, rightly, he is
called to task.