Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Crumpp]

It's not a Germany, United States, United Kingdom, or any nationality issue. It is an industrial issue and a manufacturing reality when ever you develop a complex manufacturing system for a given product from the ground up.

Look at "Willow Run", a plant which is held up as a manufacturing miracle of WWII! I don't think an argument can be made that Henry Ford did not have considerable experience in assembly line manufacturering.

By December a total of 107 bombers had been offered to the Army Air Corps, but only 56 were acceptable. Part of the problem was that, as in the auto industry, the plant was using hard steel dies instead of the softer dies more conducive to the multiple changes demanded by the aircraft industry. In the first year alone there were 575 changes required.

Willow Run and the Arsenal of Democracy

It is a fact of business. Generally speaking the more experience your assembly line work force gains and the longer you manufacture a given product, the easier and more efficient that production becomes.

It is only natural that parent companies experience fewer problems with their own design than sub-contractor making someone else’s design.

Aircraft are extremely demanding in their maintenance tolerances as you should know having worked for Lockheed. I have no doubt that only 5% of the airframes manufactured by Lockheed during the war were rejected by the services. However I imagine that is percentage of airframes which could not be brought up to acceptance levels and required scrapping and complete remanufacture.

The rejection rates I refer too are the normal deliveries. The vast majority of those airframes rejected for initial acceptance only require some reworking in order to meet acceptance standards.

For example let’s say our hypothetical service inspector finds an aircraft that does not pass its magneto rpm check. This is a very common on a hot summer day in an aircooled radial engine. Oil pools on the plugs and they foul! He might lean it to see if they clear but if that does not do the trick, the airframe is rejected. The company does not scrap that airframe; they figure out if there is a problem with the magneto, plugs, or ignition harness and fix it. The next inspection it passes and is accepted for service.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Brewster did deliver 735 airframes, signed sealed delivered.

I don't understand where you are percieving there is any claim that Brewster did not deliver 735 airframes to the USN in my post.

All the best,

Crumpp

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I don't understand where you are percieving there is any claim that Brewster did not deliver 735 airframes to the USN in my post.

All the best,

Crumpp

From this statement...

So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes with a 75% maintenance stock, we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It's not a Germany, United States, United Kingdom, or any nationality issue. It is an industrial issue and a manufacturing reality when ever you develop a complex manufacturing system for a given product from the ground up.

Look at "Willow Run", a plant which is held up as a manufacturing miracle of WWII! I don't think an argument can be made that Henry Ford did not have considerable experience in assembly line manufacturering.



Willow Run and the Arsenal of Democracy

It is a fact of business. Generally speaking the more experience your assembly line work force gains and the longer you manufacture a given product, the easier and more efficient that production becomes.

It is only natural that parent companies experience fewer problems with their own design than sub-contractor making someone else’s design.

Aircraft are extremely demanding in their maintenance tolerances as you should know having worked for Lockheed. I have no doubt that only 5% of the airframes manufactured by Lockheed during the war were rejected by the services. However I imagine that is percentage of airframes which could not be brought up to acceptance levels and required scrapping and complete remanufacture.

The rejection rates I refer too are the normal deliveries. The vast majority of those airframes rejected for initial acceptance only require some reworking in order to meet acceptance standards.

For example let’s say our hypothetical service inspector finds an aircraft that does not pass its magneto rpm check. This is a very common on a hot summer day in an aircooled radial engine. Oil pools on the plugs and they foul! He might lean it to see if they clear but if that does not do the trick, the airframe is rejected. The company does not scrap that airframe; they figure out if there is a problem with the magneto, plugs, or ignition harness and fix it. The next inspection it passes and is accepted for service.

All the best,

Crumpp

I think we're confusing rejection rate with scrap rate. When you say that an aircraft isn't accepted by the customer, it doesn't mean that there isn't rework performed to make the unit acceptable, I think you might of pointed that out in this post. Each airframe delivered is going to have some type of "corrected rejection" against it, in the aircraft production world this process is known as a "Material Review Board" or MRB. The goal is to limit MRB actions during manufacturing and perhaps that's where you're getting that 75% rejection rate. During WW2 some of the material was furnished by the government (as the case today) to build aircraft and there was actually a scrap rate built into that. If the manufacturer uses up his "scrap allowance" he's paying big penalties to the government, so this is something to be avoided at all costs.

Now as far as parent companies experiencing fewer problems than their sub-contractors - not always the case. There were many subs during WW2 that did well in their niche. McDonnell aircraft was great at making major airframe sub assemblies and eventually came into their own. Rohr Industries made engine QECs and the remnants of that company are still in the same business today - just two examples I could think of.

All in all it is quite rare to find an airframe so "butchered" that the whole thing is rejected and scrapped during manufacturing. Even during the high pace war years a company will monitor the progress of each airframe being assembled and when one is coming down the line there are Quality Assurance folks that will jump all over it to find out why things are going so bad and what's going to be done to fix the problem (My old job). You're talking thousands of dollars even back in the 1940s, and even though there was a war going on, aircraft manufacturers were still there to make money and the thought of scrapping an incomplete airframe for quality deficiencies was incomprehensible.

[Crumpp]

Hi FlyboyJ,

So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes with a 75% maintenance stock, we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force.

Maintenance stocks are accepted airframes and owned by the gaining service. They are just not issued to operational units in anticipation of the operational unit experiencing a 100% loss to an existing aircraft.

Now as far as parent companies experiencing fewer problems than their sub-contractors - not always the case.

Well there are very few absolutes in life much less business.

However, Dornier is still in business today. In fact many of the companies still exist today. The company that designed the Kommandogerät assisted us in our restoration of a working unit for our aircraft.

Willkommen bei Lindauer DORNIER GmbH

Remember we are discussing in general terms the ability of a sub-contractor to make a specific complex manufacturing product designed by the parent company with more experience manufacturing it. Of course we are ruling out mismanagement as a factor as well.

All in all it is quite rare to find an airframe so "butchered" that the whole thing is rejected and scrapped during manufacturing.

I completely agree. Given the scope and rapid expansion of Lockheed’s manufacturing effort during WWII, 5% is an excellent rate. The company has good reason to be proud.

All the best,

Crumpp

[wingnuts]

I've seen the CAC Wirraway and Boomerang mentioned a few times, I don't think either could be considered to be bad aircraft. The Wirraway was designed as a trainer based on the North American BC-1 a similar lineage to the AT6 Havard/Texan... which it resembles. It performed well in the training role and was used as a fighter occasionally when there was no alternative. It was in use by the RAAF until the late 50s. Some were converted to Ceres Ag aircraft after the war, there are several still in flying condition right now.... plus one being restored by a workmate.

The Boomerang was a rushed interim design using available components, mainly from the Wirraway... it was only intended as a stop-gap fighter and did good work in the ground support role.

I may be be biased as I'm an ex CAC employee.....

[wingnuts]

I've seen the Meteor mentioned as well.... it could hardly be classed as a bad aircraft, it's use as front line fighter may have been brief but it carried on in the RAF and the RAAF until the late 50s. I also worked on one being used as a 'Hack' when I worked at RAE Bedford (Thurleigh) in the UK in about 1976.

The Blackburn Botha would be high in my list.... it not only was a bad aircraft but they actually made over 500 of them!

... and I'm not biased as I am an ex Blackburn apprentice (Hawker-Blackburn Division, Brough) ... although I was not making Bothas but Buccaneers

[Negative Creep]

Couldn't anything with the Blackburn name be a candidate? The Botha, Skua and Roc were all useless. Not sure if its been mentioned yet, but how about the Blenheim? SO it was advanced when it was introduced, but by 1940 it was out of date, after that it was a death trap. It's always surprised me how they made thousands and used them until 1944 when the Beaufighter, mosquito, Boston or Mitchell were all available and superior in every respect. The Blenheim was slow, couldn't carry much and armament was borderline pathetic for both versions. A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted

[evangilder]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted

You could say that about darn near every bomber early in the war. The USAAF daylight bombings were almost brought to a halt because of heavy losses. That was in B-17s. No matter how well armed, bombers are no match for agile fighters, especially in a schwarm.

[Negative Creep]

True, but the USAAF raids were far deeper into enemy territory and by that stage were up against a well established are defence network. A group of B-17s or B-24s could at least defend themselves , whereas the Blenheim was basically built with a WW1 doctrine in mind

[16KJV11]

I think the Breda 88 tops the list of all time worst WWII aircraft.
Structurally and mechanically unsound, history books say it did its most effective work as a decoy on the ground.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

but how about the Blenheim

I don't consider the Blenheim a bad aircraft, it was just out of date. If you use loss rate and lack of defence as a measurement, then you could consider the Ju52 a bad airplane as well. For instance, the LVA (dutch airforce) shot down dozens of them in their 5 days of war and they had only about 40 somehow modern fighters.

[Negative Creep]

THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory

Okay, that's your definition. In my opinion, you cannot judge a plane as bad when it's a victim of false tactics as is the case with Blenheim and J87. No bomber could hold is own over enemy territory. See the dreadfull losses of the Fortresses in daylight bombing over Germany before the Mustang came along.

My point of view is that an airplane is bad if:
1. The plane was so bad it wasn't up to it's intended role from the start of it's operational career.
2. Was really a crappy airplane from starters, like flying a brick.
The Breda scores in both categories, while the ones you mentioned don't fall in either of them.
But as said, it's a matter of definition of the term "bad" after all.

[16KJV11]

Marcel,
Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?