Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Building A Plane In 24hrs - Wellington During WW2  
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6704 posts, RR: 11
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Interesting story on the BBC site

In the midst of World War II, workers at a Welsh aircraft factory gave up their weekend off to build a Wellington bomber from scratch in just 24 hours. Why? To set a new world record.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11107561

I know there was a pretty fast turnaround of aircraft during the war, well there had to be, but to go from all the bits to the complete aircraft leaving the ground in just under 25hrs is an achievement under any circumstances.

There's a video here, though it seems to be made up from stills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVk1OP_LQH4


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting oly720man (Thread starter):
In the midst of World War II,
Quoting oly720man (Thread starter):
Why? To set a new world record.

As the article says, this was actually propaganda, and should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6704 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 1):
As the article says, this was actually propaganda, and should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.

Awwww, cynic.

Sure it's a flag waving exercise to buoy up the nation, but it took perhaps half the time of regular manufacture, presumably just with more people involved.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

It is great to see this, these 'compititions' happened all the time during WWII. IIRC, in a California ship yard, the set a record by building a Liberty ship in less tahn 4 days. Also, the original Mustang Mk. I (later called the P-51 by the USAAF) built for the RAF went from a design concept to flying example in less than 120 days.

User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5155 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 2):
Awwww, cynic.

I don't think so, and I don't doubt that they worked very hard in those days.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Also, the original Mustang Mk. I (later called the P-51 by the USAAF) built for the RAF went from a design concept to flying example in less than 120 days.

And it was one of the most brilliant aircraft ever conceived. Some things have changed, I know, but it still shouldn't take a couple of decades to develop the Eurofighter or V-22 or A400M (The Europeans are the worst offenders here).



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5026 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 4):
it still shouldn't take a couple of decades to develop the Eurofighter or V-22 or A400M

Or many others, including the F-22 and F-35.


User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5010 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

I was under the impression that the F-22 did a little bit better, but maybe not. I guess the F-35 is going to be completely hopeless, with three US services and multiple nations involved.

I was looking at the Eurocopter Tiger versions recently and I think it's completely ridiculous that France and Germany didn't reach agreement on a common version. This is setting back things for years, with no real advantages.

Sorry for drifting competely off topic.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3571 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Also, the original Mustang Mk. I (later called the P-51 by the USAAF) built for the RAF went from a design concept to flying example in less than 120 days.

If I remember correct, also some late-war prototypes in Germany were very fast to be developed. In many fields the technological achievements of WW2 were never again reached.

However, it should not be forgotten that much higher resources were used as well then. In wartime, there is much less testing and much more will to use it directly at the front line.

Even today examples happen: In the 2nd gulf war, some modifications to weaponry were done very quickly. Today, German army was very quick on improvising IED protection for their equipment in Afghanistan, as well.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oly720man (Thread starter):
In the midst of World War II, workers at a Welsh aircraft factory gave up their weekend off to build a Wellington bomber from scratch in just 24 hours. Why? To set a new world record.

In contrast the restoration of the RAF Museums well cared for and intact Wellington is expected to take several years at least...

Scroll down a bit at this link:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/

edit: link didn't work..

[Edited 2010-09-13 15:59:37]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 4):
And it was one of the most brilliant aircraft ever conceived. Some things have changed, I know, but it still shouldn't take a couple of decades to develop the Eurofighter or V-22 or A400M (The Europeans are the worst offenders here).

Or F-22 etc, I agree completely and from the moment Lockheed got the go ahead until the first flight of the A-12 was 2 1/2 years... and this with no computers, and everything including fuel/oil/tires etc having to be designed themselves from scratch, and to do that which no air breathing manned aircraft had done or would do til this day.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 9):
and this with no computers

Indeed. To go even further off topic, but this is a fact of life that really baffles me:

In the 19th century, they could build long railway lines, even through very difficult alpine terrain, in just a couple of years. Railways that are still perfectly good to use today. Today, it seems to take much longer to build the same railway line. Of course, we have nimbies and the environment to consider, and we don't killl as many workers in the process. But hey, we have experience and computers and heavy machinery. And still we take longer.

Kennedy went to the moon before the decade was out. And despite the fact that we've done it before, it seems totally impossible to do that same thing within a decade now, in the unlikely event that we would want to. Of course, there was immense funding and political pressure back then, but even with all the resources needed, it would seem very difficult to launch even a straight copy of Apollo within that timeframe. Am I mistaken here? If not, isn't that weird?



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 10):
Kennedy went to the moon before the decade was out. And despite the fact that we've done it before, it seems totally impossible to do that same thing within a decade now, in the unlikely event that we would want to. Of course, there was immense funding and political pressure back then, but even with all the resources needed, it would seem very difficult to launch even a straight copy of Apollo within that timeframe. Am I mistaken here? If not, isn't that weird?

You are not mistaken, and it is weird. Was watching a show about America all day yesterday on the History channel and one segment mentioned that when the first personal computers became available commercially... that that one personal computer had more computing power than the whole of the Apollo program. Which seems insane. And as you state even with our computational powers orders of magnitude greater, and our understanding and capabilities so much more advanced.. still we lumber along lethargically thru similiar programs today that back then were done so much faster, yet with less.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

So it seems that technological progress allows us to develop things - aircraft, for example - that are a bit better/more efficient than their predecessors. But progress and experience are doing nothing to make the development process more efficient, to the contrary.

Are we just too perfectionist? Let me stress that I'm not an engineer. But shouldn't a design team say: 'Hey, with a century of experience, we know pretty well what the tail section of a transport aircraft should be like, so we'll give ourself just two weeks to design ours. If we take one year, we could maybe make it 1% lighter, and maybe eliminate some risk of having to change it later, but it's simply not worth all the trouble, time and money.' Any thoughts?

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 7):
In many fields the technological achievements of WW2 were never again reached.

Sorry, I overlooked your post. Amen to this, although there's no doubt that many things were done too hastily.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6704 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 12):
But progress and experience are doing nothing to make the development process more efficient, to the contrary.

If innovation was a more gradual process then experience helps enormously. So improvements on a single design that come through experience with the first models are a natural progression. But there are so many advances in materials, manufacturing techniques and capabilities, and the like, that every step forward seems to have a backwards step to get familiar with what's new and learn its positives and negatives and this is what can eat time and money.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3515 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 12):
So it seems that technological progress allows us to develop things - aircraft, for example - that are a bit better/more efficient than their predecessors. But progress and experience are doing nothing to make the development process more efficient, to the contrary.



As I mentioned in another thread, during wartime with a known objective and opposition, then development can be focused. in "peacetime" we have little in the way of absolute mission so we try to cover all bases with all a/c, ground and naval equipment. That makes for tremendous complexity and enormous tradeoffs .. you know the old "jack of all trades and master of none".

Also post war product lines are often too short to realize benefits of mass production... Look at B-17 production vs B-1's... OK the F35 will have a chance, but they'll mess it up.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):

I was under the impression that the F-22 did a little bit better, but maybe not.


The Lockheed YF-22 won the fly off over the Northrop YF-23 in April 1991? It's taken them 19 years to built about 165 of them. I don't consider that "a little better".

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 11):
You are not mistaken, and it is weird. Was watching a show about America all day yesterday on the History channel and one segment mentioned that when the first personal computers became available commercially... that that one personal computer had more computing power than the whole of the Apollo program. Which seems insane. And as you state even with our computational powers orders of magnitude greater, and our understanding and capabilities so much more advanced.. still we lumber along lethargically thru similiar programs today that back then were done so much faster, yet with less.



The problem is that when you have all that computing power you want to use it! So additional tasks and tests are performed because "we have the capability".

Some years ago I assisted on a NASA program. They originally had six (6) different parameters they wanted to monitor during the tests (altitude/speed/fuel flow/heading/temperature/aileron position). When they found out that the test console could monitor over a hundred parameters the test parameters were expanded because "we have the capability".

Kelly Johnson's "KISS" philosophy is not compatible with the computer driven world.


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6704 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4740 times:

There was a documentary on BBC4 tonight with interviews and reminiscences from some of the workers, as well as a Wellington pilot. It can be downloaded, if it's allowed to your bit of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tr2p5



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2084 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

You also have to consider risk aversion and design committees as part of the modern design problems. Adding more people and levels of management results in more hurdles, not more progress.

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3571 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Funny enough, civilian producers are usually better. Airbus did a lot of design studies for a long time on the A380, but despite all delays, they were quite fast getting the plane ready to fly. This also applies to the 777. Ok maybe not the 787, but also this plane was designed and built relatively well.

User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14011 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 4):
And it was one of the most brilliant aircraft ever conceived. Some things have changed, I know, but it still shouldn't take a couple of decades to develop the Eurofighter or V-22 or A400M (The Europeans are the worst offenders here).

The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star ( the first real American jet fighter) was designed and flown in 1944 in less than 90 days (under the leadership of famous Kelly Johnson).
Similarly the Manhattan Project faced several extremely difficult tasks at the leading edge of physics and managed to get the results just within 4 years.

Jan


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Building A Plane In 24hrs - Wellington During WW2
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Classic US Navy Plane In TLV posted Mon Oct 11 2004 01:55:34 by Flyprivate
The Safest Plane In A Dogfight Is What posted Fri Sep 3 2004 01:12:07 by SonOfACaptain
Nato Chairman's Plane "frozen" In Moscow! posted Fri Dec 18 2009 00:31:28 by Pylon101
24 Dead In Bandung Military Plane Crash posted Mon Apr 6 2009 08:53:12 by Baroque
Inflight Refuelling In WW2? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 19:28:10 by PMN1
Fatal Plane Crash In The Keys (Tether Blimp Wire) posted Fri May 4 2007 05:11:31 by TedTAce
Rivals Muscle In On Lockheed's Cargo Plane posted Thu May 3 2007 22:42:04 by Srbmod
British Sea King In Chile During Falklands War posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:26:00 by SkidMarque
Mossie As Close In Support Plane? posted Sat Dec 16 2006 04:18:34 by MD11Engineer
Libyan Plane Down In Cameroon posted Sun Apr 23 2006 13:27:23 by JoKeR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format