Attention To Detail

or FANATICS full stop . :p :lol: . theyve come a long way . Piggy Muldoon had something to say about this. In his usuall tactfull way . hic .

Attention To Detail
 
The Japanese have perfected perfection.

While visiting Kyoto, we would get doughnuts for breakfast from Mr. Doughnut.

The girl behind the counter would meticulously individually wrap each one in tissue paper and place it in a bag.

Then fold the top of the bag. This happened every morning we went there.

Same service everywhere we went.

No wonder they are at the top of manufacturing.
 
Just my opinion but to me they still have never made a motorcycle I think looks good or has made me want one. Not that all Brit bikes were pretty, they weren't but to me no CB anything Honda is a good looking bike no matter how well detailed. I'm glad the teenybopper/20 something kids are into then though, saves the cooler older stuff from being destroyed except for unit Triumphs which are all the rage, and even then as a friend & somewhat celebrated builder of bobber/chopper/custom Triumphs says " the bikes I customize / chop /weld etc are just someone else's future 100% restoration project!
 
acotrel said:
I watched this video and was staggered by the Japanese attention to detail. They are really fanatics about quality. I don't think any other race will ever beat them at anything automotive.

I don't agree on the "any other race" comment. Certainly Honda went all out in the 60's to develop and manufacture excellent motorcycles and eventually cars. In terms of design, the Italians had already done much of the earlier motor concepts beginning with Pietro Remors DOHC 4 Gilera Rondine of 1938. MV Agusta built exceedingly fine machines, but solely for racing and had little interest in production for public sales. BMW had superb design and quality all through the 50's and 60's and continued into the 70's with the automated production line in Berlin for the /7 series. The Japanese struggled with frame design and had some sub-standard fabrication in the chassis for too long. It was not until the advent of the 1977 Suzuki GS750 that the design and build finally made that an acceptable handling package. And they also at last learnt how to apply durable chrome plate .
Today the European motorcycle design and manufacture is both innovative and of the highest automotive quality, equal too or better than the Japanese, and this has been the case for the last decade.
Aco - you need to get out to the bike shops more often and really eyeball the non-Japanese products to get a realistic understanding.
 
It's certainly true the Japanese have some of the best manufacturing techniques available, and have done for some considerable time.

One thing I noticed in my engineering studies is they appear to have a philosophy where everyone understands their position, including the management staff.

Having grown up in the '70s era of industrial unrest in the UK, and witnessed first hand the 'us and them' philosophy prevalent in UK manufacturing, it's clear where the Japanese were able to exploit the market.
I don't believe their products have always been superior, but they always knew when to stop flogging a dead horse.

We just never seemed to notice, or care.
 
I've worked in Japan. I've also worked for probably the leading light in Japanese industry; Toyota. I've got a million stories that highlight the cultural differences in terms of the culture of quality and service.

No-one and nothing is perfect, but I have nothing but admiration for most things Japanese these days (gone are the days of having "GPZs Suck" written on the number plate of my thrashed-to-death T140, which is clearly untrue... I guess I just wanted to start a fight... and the Mods had all gone by then)!

Hell I got so taken in by everything Japanese, I even married one !!
 
I recently read a book on the British Spitfire then right after read four more books on US, German and Japanese built aircraft.
I have heard and read many great things about the German Me 109, however the Luftwaffe pilots were all in awe of the British aircraft, especially the Spitfire and the deHavilland Mosquito.
After losing the air Battle of Britain, the German fighter pilots were told to avoid all fights with Spitfires below 10,000 feet and to be extremely wary above that.
No need to issue the directives, by then most German fighter pilots knew enough to run when a Spit showed up!
Even US pilots who loved their P51 Mustangs freely admitted that in a dogfight the Spitfire was the best fighter plane in the world.
The Japanese fighter planes of WW2 were , by comparison to the British, poorly built throwaways that were easily blown from the skies.
The second best fighter of the War might have been the P51Mustang, but that was only because the Allison engine was turfed and the Mustang was given the mighty Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
The Brits also had the world's first Jet Fighter, the Gloster Meteor. Only the British and the Germans had Jets in WW 2, and the British were first, as with most things.

Japan did a patent study in the 1980s and learned that 54% of the worlds most important inventions were British.
How does that happen in a small Island Country with a land mass half the size of California and a population of only 60 million or so?
It is the British we should be in awe of, not the Japanese who copied all those inventions!

The Commando in 1970 could out accelerate and out handle any Japanese "Superbike" of the day, plus it did not make the rider numb from tingling vibration as those bikes did. On top of that it was the beauty queen among some real ugly ducks.
The only thing the Japanese bikes from that era had in their favour was price, and that is a big factor.

Glen
 
I apologise for using the word 'race' in what I've said about the Japanese. There are two aspects which I believe are relevant. One is 'authoritarianism stifles creativity', the other is about an ever present conundrum - 'democracy and control in the workplace'. I believe that with the Japanese the controls are internalized, with the Germans I think it is more about authoritariansm. I watched the WW2 in colour videos and I'm amazed at the technology which was developed under Hitler. The Japanese major advances were made after WW2 when they had MITI, and J. Edwards Deming brought US and British industrial engineering, and quality ethos. If you look at ISO 9000, the major aspect is about 'continual improvement'. I suspect that achieving that depends on a level of industrial democracy. If the improvements all come from middle or upper management, and the 'us and them' prevails, you find the better bikes come from the situation where a level of democratic teamwork prevails. I don't believe the Japanese or Germans have ever been as creative as the British, and certainly not as the Italians are. I think most of their designs are developments derived from originality from other places. I love their racing bikes, however rarely have any feeling for their road bikes. As far as the Americans go, I think they are simply smart pommies who have ditched the old class system and learned to manage risk and have become slightly artistic through immigration. I used to really loved my old 1942 500cc WD Indian - much better engineered than any Harley.
 
acotrel said:
I apologise for using the word 'race' in what I've said about the Japanese. There are two aspects which I believe are relevant. One is 'authoritarianism stifles creativity', the other is about an ever present conundrum - 'democracy and control in the workplace'. I believe that with the Japanese the controls are internalized, with the Germans I think it is more about authoritariansm. I watched the WW2 in colour videos and I'm amazed at the technology which was developed under Hitler. The Japanese major advances were made after WW2 when they had MITI, and J. Edwards Deming brought US and British industrial engineering, and quality ethos. If you look at ISO 9000, the major aspect is about 'continual improvement'. I suspect that achieving that depends on a level of industrial democracy. If the improvements all come from middle or upper management, and the 'us and them' prevails, you find the better bikes come from the situation where a level of democratic teamwork prevails. I don't believe the Japanese or Germans have ever been as creative as the British, and certainly not as the Italians are. I think most of their designs are developments derived from originality from other places. I love their racing bikes, however rarely have any feeling for their road bikes. As far as the Americans go, I think they are simply smart pommies who have ditched the old class system and learned to manage risk and have become slightly artistic through immigration. I used to really loved my old 1942 500cc WD Indian - much better engineered than any Harley.

The first two lines pretty much say it all - It's ironic that wartime exploits are the best examples. I read extensively about the D-day battles, and it was a known fact among the Germans that all they had to do was shoot the officers - after that the remaining troops just stopped fighting. the Allied officers first response was to remove all rank insignia.

The Spitfire was a classic example of British engineering - the early models were a little unstable in yaw, and Mitchell knew this, but refused to countenance any changes, as 'it would detract too much from the original design', which diminished the aircraft as a gun platform. It finally got a bigger tail 7 years or so after the prototype first flew.
The Merlin was a remarkable powerplant - 26 litres compared to the Daimler Benz 34 litre ( The Russian equivalent was nearly 47 litres :shock: )

The P-51 has been argued to be the best fighter of WWII. May or may not be the case, but engine aside, it was built to a British spec!

The MIg Vs Sabre battles over the Yalu river would have been slower had the Russians not had Rolls-Royce designed Turbines, and the F-86 had a Frank Whittle designed engine - an all-British dogfight!!

We do seem to have influenced industry to a huge extent, but we don't seem to be particularly good at exploiting our innovations - we're a nation run by bean-counters :(

In Germany (and elsewhere) an Engineer seems to command similar respect to a Doctor, whereas in the UK an Engineer is a bloke who fixes washing machines :roll:
 
Britain invented the modern world, the rest of us continue to enjoy it and improve upon it. Especially those of us lucky enough to own A Norton or a Vincent!

Glen
 
I believe the difference between the P51 Mustang and the Spitfire was that the Spitfire was built in jigs by women while the Mustang was built on a production line using American production engineering methods. One of the biggest difficulties we had in my past life in Australian defence engineering factories was failure to identify a prototype, freeze the design at some point and do the configuration management properly. Like all things British, the Spitfire is superb however the mentality used when building it was different. I don't believe the British were ever big on production lines. The old trades mentality still existed, however I believe that in Germany they even had 'Master Tradesmen'. Something like the P51 Mustang just had to be a winner.
I went to the Ducati factory in Bologna in 2008 and I couldn't really see the production line, it all seemed to be assembly and machining and testing centres.
 
To be fair, you'd have to assume that the two aircraft were being flown by pilots of equal skill and experience. The two models that it is most fair to compare would be the Spitfire XIV and P-51D, which were the primary models in service with their respective services in mid-1944. The Spitfire XIV actually entered service in January 1944, five months before the P-51D. The Spitfire XIV was faster than the Mustang, more maneuverable, had a higher service ceiling, could climb better, and even had a better rate of roll, which was formerly the Mustang's only performance advantage over the Spitfire. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except initial dive speed and range, and the only way range came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel! 

Some quotes: William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

 Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death." 

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers." 

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined
Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice." 

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..." 

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air." 

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..." The Mustang was a great fighter, but it was great because it had the range the Spitfire lacked, enabling it to take the fight to the enemy. But in a one-on-one dogfight, there's absolutely no comparison. The Spitfire would win decisively, 99 times out of 100...
 
Interesting thread......why was it, given that both aircraft ran Merlin type engines, was it that the Mustang had a much greater range than the Spitfire.

Interesting Aussie video on UTube, look for Beaufighter, whispering death.
 
The Mustang used aluminium drop tanks to extend it's range. Drop tanks could also be fitted to the Spitfire to similarly extend it's range, however there was a shortage of aluminium in Britain so not many Spitfire drop tanks were made.
I speculate that the British also had a second reason to hold the Spitfires close to Britain. With the enemy sitting so close and after experiencing the Battle of Britain, they did not want to be caught with insufficient fighter aircraft to protect Britain from invasion.
By switching to nightime high altitude bombing runs, the losses of Lancaster and other Bombers were acceptable even without fighter escort.
The US took a totally different approach at first. They believed in precision strategic bombing which required daytime bombing runs and fighter escort. Since the US mainland was far out of reach for German aircraft of the day, they did not have the British concern of protecting the Homeland. Instead they needed to protect their Bombers, hence the Mustangs got drop tanks and flew over Germany.
The US bombers had a better bomb site than the British Lancaster and the US believed in "pickle Barrel" bombing, that is to say they felt their accuracy was such that they could drop a bomb into a pickle barrel. In reality it was later found that less than 20% of their daylight run bombs made it into a 1,000 ft radius circle target zone. Accuracy was nonexisitant.
Eventually the US gave up on the idea of "precision strategic" bombing and switched to British methods. The bomber losses on two daytime raids to the Schweinfurt ball bearing factories were too much to take.
Glen
 
The Spitfire was essentially a point interceptor - as were most pre-war designs.
The P-51 was designed to a wartime spec, and apart from the drop tanks, had a significantly larger internal fuel capacity.
Goering admitted he knew the game was over when he saw US fighters over Berlin.
 
I've often wondered why the Brits did not copy the fuel injection system used on the BF109 ? Having the carbs flood if you pushed the Spitfire into a dive must have been a major disadvantage, and the must have been enough fairly intact Messerschmidts around to get one to pull apart.
 
As the plane developed range was added. There were 22 Mks. in all

Wing Commander Pete BrothersCulmhead WingApril to October 1944"During deep penetration fighter sweeps over France in 1944 my three squadrons would spread out in pairs in a near line abreast formation, thus allowing us to cover a vast swathe of sky. This formation comprised of two squadrons equipped with Spitfire F VIIs and a solitary unit with Mk XIVs. Range was never a great problem.I remained at Culmhead with a wing comprising Spit VIIs and XIVs, both which boasted superb range that allowed us to sweep as far east over the continent as the Swiss border.We also flew daylight bomber escort missions in our long-range Spits, with three and a half hour sorties becoming quite common place."Spitfire - Flying LegendJohn Dibbs and Tony Holmespgs 130 and 132
 
Back
Top