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

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...

Snip


Why did you write the above? Today, a corporation specialized to
manufacturing small propeller aircraft for the leisure and corporate
market does exist.

I fail to see the link between the construction of modern small
leisure aircraft, which does NOT involve the construction of
engines, and the assembly of WWII aircraft engines.


As far as I know, the VEro Beach, Florida Piper plant is a full
assemble plant. Please back up your statement that the Vero Beach,
Florida Piper plant doesn't "do" complete assemble. The link is
conceptual. My case was purely conceptual as first before becoming
concrete. I defended these related notions and climed nothing more
for them than notions:


So you are agreeing with Emmanuel, the Vero beach plant
assembles light aircraft but doesnt build its own engines

All related to options that an imgained SimWWII might allow from July
1st, 1940:

1) RAF fighter strenght can be increased.
a. Bomber command can provide fuel, skilled labor, and other goods and
services to fighter command.

Fighter command wasnt short of fuel or skilled
labour. The only thing it was short of was trained
fighter pilots and experience has shown that trying
to put bomber or transport pilots into fighters is
disastrous. The skill sets are too different.

b. Bomber production can be decreased quickly by allowing
manufacturing plants of bombers to loan to fighter manufacturing
plants skilled labor, materials, and other goods and services.


One more.

You cant make Spitfire wings , a complex monocoque structure
in a factory that builds wings for Wellington bombers that have
a geodesic aluminium structure covered in fabric,

You cant use the air cooled radial engines the bomber uses
in a Spitfire or Hurricane

Such a switch wouldnt produce new fighter airframes
until 1943 at the earliest


The first point a. seems to be the most controversial by just a bit.
I claimed from conceptual awareness backed by some brief statements in
interviews I have heard here and there on the USA's History Channel,
and a bit from reading--that fighter ground support can be strenghted
as to allow on *major bases* air plane manufacturing. The example
provided by Tex was the largest of 20 or so top tier maintance
facilities that manufactured a variety of new plane.

Tex said nothing of the sort, He referred to the Burtonwood
REPAIR depot. Like the Catle Bromwich site it was ordered
by the British in 1938 but wasnt fully operational until 1941.

It was handed over to the USAAF in 1942 and while it repaired and
refurbished
aircraft and rebuilt aircraft engines and assembled aircraft
shipped as kits from the USA it didnt build a single new aircraft
from scratch

Similarly the RAF used civil aviation repair facilities during the
BOB, I've already mentioned Marshall's of Cambridge

The military
itself had military personnel and civialian military personnel
manufacturing new planes. Hundreds of second tier facilities existed
on airbases of less size, and smaller ones had third tier facilities.
In the fact of concrete evidnese that the military did do this very
similarly to my concepts based on real world understanding and bit and
peices of interviews and book mentions--you should drop out, drip in,
and tune on.


In other words if the facts dont support you fantasy just ignore them.

By the way a mini-mill is a metal recycling mill that uses finished
metals from junk, or large slabs or ingots of metal. The metal
milling at the plant mentioned by Tex isn't likely to be making
millions of tons of steel a year using iron ore just mined from the
earth close by. Nor did this plant likely have alumium smelters as
all alumium would be from 100% alumium content inputs be it from a
smelter in the form of ingots or from damaged parts of a plane.


No the Aluminium it used would be mainly in the form
of sheet material bought from an Aluminium smelter.

The manufacture of aircraft grade aluminium isnt something
you can do in a mini-mill as you'd realise if you new anything
about engineering or metallurgy.


I will Google for a few minutes in a new window.

I suggest you Google for shops capable of overhauling WWII
aircraft engines. You will find that these are highly specialised
in this business.


Today, I suppose, I wonder if the RAF can overhaul a Merlin today?

No they get Rolls Royce to do that

I wonder if the RAF will over haul a Euro-fighter? They will ship it
back
to some factory well away from any airbase, uh?


No they'll do routine repairs on the base but the aircraft
are built by British Aerospace.

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.

On the contrary, they would as a rule be built on or near a large
airbase, because aircraft manufacturers needed to flight-test their
aircraft before delivery! There were a handful of exceptions; IIRC
Brewster built its aircraft in the city and some assembly was even
done on the second floor. That was, however, recognized to be
an absurd and undesirable situation.


Good. Airplanes are inherently made near airports, or airbases,
runways...


Of course all major aircraft manufacturers have their own runways


But no military airbase would be involved in the construction of
its own aircraft. They might do re-assembly of aircraft shipped
in crates, in itself quite a challenge.


Poor RAF just can muster the skilled labor, huh?
Too hard for them?


No they are just too busy keeping the aircraft flying


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?

Recycling parts is not the same as assembling engines. Normally,
bases would not be assembling engines, not even overhauling them;
they would be shipped back to the manufacturer or to a maintenance
center.



What do you thnk a "base" is? A maintenace center is compatible with
core military missions.
All bases and forts I have every been on have had maintenance centers.
The maintenance centers
are the factories I'm talking about, the mills I'm talking about...


They didnt build new aircraft, just repaired existing ones

I see you just wanted me to use the vocabualry right!

I read the read of your crap, it was crap.


Grow up will you.

Keith