F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

"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 ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Ricardo" wrote in message
k...


The Mustang was not a participant in the Battle of Britain and, as far
as I'm aware was used for 'army liaison duties' with the Army
Co-operation Command which was established in December 1940 and also with
the Combined Operations Unit.

Only true in regards to the Mustang I and IA; the later Mustang III served
with a number of RAF units in the (primarily) air-to-air fighter role and
performed escort for both USAAF and RAF bombing missions. P-51D/K variants
served with the RAF for a couple of years after the war was over.

A one-time manager of mine flew Spitfires with 485(NZ) Squadron,
including ground support post-D-Day. Near VE day, he was moved out to
start transistioning to the Mustang, they expected to move to the
Pacific, but VJ day fixed that.

He said the liked the Mustang the best of anything he flew, but he was
still glad he never had to "use" it.

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

In article , DeepSea
wrote:

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were
directed by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target;
the aircraft's systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre
which had the effect of taking the aircraft away and above the target
while the ordnance continued along the line-of-sight to impact. Such
aircraft were tasked against known targets, predominantly the Chain
Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the aircraft-weapon systems was a
success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a second sortie.


That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

The RAF were understandably further ahead of the power curve than USAAC
with regards to what equipment was needed for the air battle.
They had the recent experience of BoB and previously BoF.

The German bombers came over in the mid-teens (probably due to oxygen
issues) with fighter cover that started out in the high teens, but as the
battles
progressed and each side sought the advantage, the fighter cover started
coming over in the low to mid-twenties.

Thus the race for better performing fighters at "high" altitude.

The USAAC was still stuck in the opinion that fighter battles would take place
in the mid-teens. This didn't change until the US entered the war.
That's why NAA had shown the Mustang I to the AAC with the Allison engine.
It performed well at the mid-teens. It's what the AAC asked for, and you
have to offer the customer what he wants.
The British took them that way out of necessity, with their eyes open, and
assigned them to roles that didn't require high altitude, until a fix
could be found.

The USAAC wan't that interested in the Mustang at first because they already
had several figher projects well underway (P-38, P-47).

WRT German dive bombing: the type most used for that was the JU-87 Stuka
and they were such dead meat for the RAF that the Luftwaffe stopped sending
them over early on in BoB.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Ricardo wrote:


What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?


In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially
named "Apache".

- Three-blade rather than four-blade prop.

- Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in
original Mustang.

- Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to
Douglas Dauntless.

About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African
theaters.

The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida.

Thanks Steve,

Each day we learn a little more...

Ricardo

PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin
production. Here I'm going to learn something else...

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.

In article ,
Ricardo wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Ricardo wrote:


What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?


In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially
named "Apache".

- Three-blade rather than four-blade prop.

- Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in
original Mustang.

- Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to
Douglas Dauntless.

About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African
theaters.

The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida.

Thanks Steve,

Each day we learn a little more...

Ricardo

PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin
production. Here I'm going to learn something else...

Duuuh. Packard is right.

I blame it on the poison oak what I got around my eyes currently.

Glasses are a *good* thing...

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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).

Uh, I don't know about "regularly falling," but here is the best
reference I could find (skip down to the Mk XVI part):

http://www.spitfire.dk/chapter3.htm

I always figured this happened because of the difference between British
manufacturing (production tolerances designed for hand-fitted assembly,
ie. not all pistons will fit well in all cylinders) vs American
manufacturing (production tolerances matched for mass production, ie.
all pistons will fit well enough in all cylinders).

Then again, the article I cited suggests it may have been a problem
limited to just one batch rather than the different industrial
philosophies between Henry T. and Henry Royce.

Was this thread about the F-35?

(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

DeepSea wrote:

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in
:


"DeepSea" wrote in message
. 136...

snip

.... . The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, _most_
of the bombing _against England was dive bombing_,

Really? Please define _most_ and _dive_ bombing, in your statement.
FWIW, AIUI, _Dive_ bombers were used against the Chain Home sites at
the beginning of the Luftwaffe's Bombing campaign - and against such
defined sites the dive bombers would have been an appropriate resource
to task, but AFAIK the bombing campaigns against Liverpool, Coventry,
Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton, London et.al were carried out at
night by waves of 'level' bombers. Your information may of course be
more accurate - I await your disclosures with interest.

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of
about an hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end
of the German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion
(directed at an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated
to be less than 10,000 feet, and at night.

In respect of *the Battle of Britain* only it's possible that most of the
bombing ( on RAF fields ) may have been dive bombing.

The Blitz on London that followed ( and other bombing raids on various UK
cities ) most certainly wasn't the same however.

Graham