Attention To Detail

acotrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

In typical UK fashion they improvised. It was fairly soon recognised that the Spitfire was at a disadvantage if it was following a target which push over into a dive, when the Merlin would cough and splutter. A young lady Engineer named Shilling at RAE Farnborough came up with a sort of washer which affected the fuel flow. Obviously the only name for this "washer" was Miss Shillings Orifice. Google "Miss Shilling's Orifice" for the full story.
As for Production Engineering, they (the UK) built some huge "shadow factories" all over the UK. The biggest was probably at Castle Bromwich in the Midlands. Whilst the Spitfire was always a complex aircraft to build, all those compound curves came at a price, the Castle Bromwich factory was pumping out 300 per week in 1944. Apparently the peak was 320 Spitfires. The same factory also built Lancasters! The Castle Bromwich factory became a car factory after the war.
cheers
wakeup
 
we are way off thread, but continuing on the Mustang vs Spitfire theme.....the Mustang had a thin laminar flow wing profile which reduced drag significantly, giving it extended range. In short, the mustang got better mileage.
 
Miss Shillings orifice was the temporary fix. From 42 on the Merlins had pressurized carbs which solved the negative G problem.
Later Spitfires also used laminar wings. In all, four wing designs were used.

Here is a motorcycle connection- Phillip Vincent named the Black Shadow for returning Spitfires, heading back to their airfields after enemy combat during the Battle of Britain. From a hill above the Vincent works he would see the Black Shadow of the aircraft sliding across factory roofs as they flew over. It has to be the most evocative name ever given a motorcycle.

Glen
 
texasSlick said:
we are way off thread, but continuing on the Mustang vs Spitfire theme.....the Mustang had a thin laminar flow wing profile which reduced drag significantly, giving it extended range. In short, the mustang got better mileage.
Click to expand...

In addition to the laminar flow wing, the fuselage was also very carefully designed aerodynamically, using the latest mathematical techniques available.
The Spiteful was the final development of the Spit, and used a laminar flow wing section, which wasn't a thickness thing per se, but featured a very sharp leading edge and moved the effective centre of pressure further back, hence reducing overall drag. The wing required very careful manufacture with no discontinuities to actually work as designed, and didn't make any appreciable difference to the performance of the Spit, other than degrading the low-speed handling - according to the dyed-in-the-wool spitfire test pilots :roll:

I was looking at the wing of a Jap fighter at the RAF museum a few weeks ago, and it featured overlapping panels and although flush-riveted, it really was rough as hell. some of the joint steps were over 1/16" - and on the wing underside. P51 wings were filled and sanded.

We were talking about attention to detail ;)

Spitfires were indeed built all over the place, and component sub-assembly was farmed out to garages and workshops all over the place - Stalin lifted his factories and shipped them wholesale to get production out of the range of the Luftwaffe.
I've been privileged to work at Westlands, who took over some Spitfire production after the Supermarine factory was levelled. Some of the buildings still have bomb splinter damage from back in the day. Apparently one bomb went off in the Directors Car park. Some of the guys I worked with still see the 'funny side' of that one.
 
The Spiteful was a brand new design. Apart from the first prototype which used a Spitfire XIV fuselage and tail, there were no significant Spitfire bits in production Spiteful/Seafang aircraft
The Spitfire had a very thin wing, which partly accounted for its high speed. Its thickness at the wing root was 13%, compared to the Me109 14.8%, Hurricane 16%, Mustang 16%. The Mustang got its long range from big tanks. The Spitfire had a very high limiting speed something like over 600mph (in a dive!), which was faster than any other allied aircraft and accounted for its (Spitfires) use in the high speed research carried out at RAE Farnborough in the mid/late 40s. Apparently the procedure was to climb to about 40,000 and at full throttle dive to about 20,000 feet in a 45 degree dive. This would generate the speeds of over 600mph
There is a story somewhere, I think it's in one of Alex Henshaws books, about attention to detail. On the early Mks of Spitfire all rivets were countersunk. Countersinking rivets in thin sheet metal is expensive, it requires special tooling to draw the countersunk shape, special rivets etc etc. All time and money, especially when there are thousands of rivets per aircraft. So a special plan was developed, using split peas, which happened to be about the same size as a non countersunk rivet head. Split peas were stuck to the heads of countersunk rivets in groups and the aircraft flown, speeds and other things noted. This was repeated until the rivets that could be changed from countersunk to round head, with little change in performance could be identified. That's attention to detail!
cheers
wakeup
 
All this proves one thing - which I can't take credit for as I saw it on a forum (possibly this one?)
I suspect it doesn't apply just to me...
I ride, repair and restore old British bikes because I can't afford a WWII fighter of my own

Although I can dream....

Attention To Detail
 
Yup, the Spitfire is now on my list.
I will also need a pilot's license, an aircraft hangar and a spare 3 million$. :mrgreen:

Glen
 
You can always do what I do....listen to them on youtube!!
cheers
wakeup
 
Are you aware that there are two definitions of the term 'quality'. ISO9000 gives it as 'fit for purpose', so both a Mini and a Rolls Royce are by that definition 'quality products'. A better definition has been suggested - 'fit for purpose with obvious attention to detail'. Using that definition gives a different answer. The GATT Treaty meetings in Brazil in the early seventies were concerned with preventing quality issues becoming barriers to trade. So where does that leave countries with high labour costs producing excellent goods ? I'm convinced that the only way Australia can compete globally is by moving upmarket and charging higher prices to justify overheads etc.
 
acotrel said:
Are you aware that there are two definitions of the term 'quality'. ISO9000 gives it as 'fit for purpose', so both a Mini and a Rolls Royce are by that definition 'quality products'. A better definition has been suggested - 'fit for purpose with obvious attention to detail'. Using that definition gives a different answer. The GATT Treaty meetings in Brazil in the early seventies were concerned with preventing quality issues becoming barriers to trade. So where does that leave countries with high labour costs producing excellent goods ? I'm convinced that the only way Australia can compete globally is by moving upmarket and charging higher prices to justify overheads etc.
Click to expand...

Working in the Aerospace industry can drive a sane Engineer mad with 'spec compliance' issues, but we always lose the argument due to 'cost considerations', and get accused of gilding the lily.
We call it polishing a t*rd.

Any item must have an overarching fitness for purpose, which can occasionally not be covered by even the most detailed spec, and even now, some of the most prestigious suppliers can deliver goods which aren't fit for purpose, and sometimes don't match the drawing. Getting resolution can be a long and tedious activity - witness recent safety recalls by Toyota and GM. They play a legal risk game, and only when they can be demonstrably held responsible for multiple deaths do they seem to lift a finger :roll:

I often wondered what the design life of a Norton Commando was...
 
Ms Shilling seems to have been a rather special woman !!

" In the 1930s, Shilling raced motorcycles. She beat professional riders, such as Noel Pope, and was awarded the Gold Star for lapping the Brooklands circuit at 106 miles per hour (171 km/h) on her Norton M30.

Shilling was once described by a fellow scientist as "a flaming pathfinder of women's lib"; she always rejected any suggestion that as a woman she might be inferior to a man in technical and scientific fields. However, a brusque manner and a contempt for bureaucracy led to an uneasy relationship with management. Shilling worked for the RAE until the late-1960s, but never achieved high rank within the organization.

She held a doctorate from the University of Surrey, a CEng and was a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Women's Engineering Society.

Post-war, she raced cars. In the 1960s, she and her husband owned and raced an Elva Courier and an Elva, Formula Junior, single-seat racing car.[5]

Shilling married George Naylor, in September 1938.[6] He also worked at the RAE. According to anecdote, she refused to marry him until he also had been awarded the Brooklands Gold Star for lapping the circuit at over 100 mph."
Click to expand...
 
B+Bogus said:
acotrel said:
Are you aware that there are two definitions of the term 'quality'. ISO9000 gives it as 'fit for purpose', so both a Mini and a Rolls Royce are by that definition 'quality products'. A better definition has been suggested - 'fit for purpose with obvious attention to detail'. Using that definition gives a different answer. The GATT Treaty meetings in Brazil in the early seventies were concerned with preventing quality issues becoming barriers to trade. So where does that leave countries with high labour costs producing excellent goods ? I'm convinced that the only way Australia can compete globally is by moving upmarket and charging higher prices to justify overheads etc.
Click to expand...

Working in the Aerospace industry can drive a sane Engineer mad with 'spec compliance' issues, but we always lose the argument due to 'cost considerations', and get accused of gilding the lily.
We call it polishing a t*rd.

Any item must have an overarching fitness for purpose, which can occasionally not be covered by even the most detailed spec, and even now, some of the most prestigious suppliers can deliver goods which aren't fit for purpose, and sometimes don't match the drawing. Getting resolution can be a long and tedious activity - witness recent safety recalls by Toyota and GM. They play a legal risk game, and only when they can be demonstrably held responsible for multiple deaths do they seem to lift a finger :roll:

I often wondered what the design life of a Norton Commando was...
Click to expand...

A lot of industries seem to operate with a minimalist/compliance mindset instead of embracing quality management. Many Australian companies even have quality certification however I doubt that they ever use the management system system documentation for training purposes. I believe that the 'mutual recognition of quality certificates' which is the reason for ISO9000 is largely bullshit. It is part of Free Trade Agreements, however the current situation seems to be that substandard products and quality products command much the same prices in the globalized market place. At the present time we are losing our car industry in Australia. Germany has similar wage structures to Australia and is highly unionised, yet does not have our problem - a Holden will never be an Audi . Incidentally, in Australia Toyota produces the best cars.

About design life. I believe the design concept was different for the Commando compared with Japanese bikes. The Norton is completely rebuildable by backyard mechanics, as are Harleys. A Japanese bike is much more a throw-away item. Our mindset has changed and it is now a world full of people with no mechanical skills. I am the secretary of a motorcycle club, I don't think many of our MX kids can rebuild their own motors. It would be interesting to know the demographic which uses this forum ?
 
I was watching a TV programme last weekend about Harleys and a guy called Paul Hallam who comes from around Geelong in Victoria. He bought a Harley in South Australia and while he was riding it home it launched itself. He showed the big hole in the cases where the rod had come out, also the conrods, one of which which had an 'S'-shaped bend in it. Quality products out of China. I'm firmly of the belief that the only way Australia, America, and Europe can compete is on the basis of quality. The Chinese have a major disadvantage with their culture which respects seniority, and tends to ignore input from the young, so creativity is a problem.
I'm trying to find the video which is supposed to be uploaded to Vimeo.com . When I find it, I will post the link. It is worth a look.
 
acotrel said:
About design life. I believe the design concept was different for the Commando compared with Japanese bikes. The Norton is completely rebuildable by backyard mechanics, as are Harleys. A Japanese bike is much more a throw-away item. Our mindset has changed and it is now a world full of people with no mechanical skills. I am the secretary of a motorcycle club, I don't think many of our MX kids can rebuild their own motors.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should give them some classes ?
The rest of this could best be described as total nonsense ?

I have rebuilt a few japanese motorcycles.
After replacing all the silly cheesehead screws with socket heads, it must be said.

Apart from that I could do it all with just a 10mm spanner and a pair of circlip pliers, no special tools required,
I could also go down to the H*nda shoppe and order a full set of genuine gaskets and parts for it,
quite some years after it was made. And they all fitted and were all there, nothing wrong, nothing missing.
It was also easy and intuitive how it came apart and went together again, everything had been thought out so there
was about no possibilty of things being fitted upside down or wrong way around - very clever = ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

I didn't have to press the bearings off the crank though.
They still seemed like new, after quite a mileage it must be said.
Maybe it was the individual oil supply to each and every one of them = ATTENTION TO DETAIL.

P.S. The world of competition dirt bikes may be a little different however.
There its always this years model versus all the old stuff.
Even back in the British era it was always so...

Now there are clubs and events for VMX, and restored bikes, so maybe the wheel has come full circle.
 
Rohan said:
acotrel said:
I have rebuilt a few japanese motorcycles.
After replacing all the silly cheesehead screws with socket heads, it must be said.

Apart from that I could do it all with just a 10mm spanner and a pair of circlip pliers, no special tools required,
I could also go down to the H*nda shoppe and order a full set of genuine gaskets and parts for it,
quite some years after it was made. And they all fitted and were all there, nothing wrong, nothing missing.
It was also easy and intuitive how it came apart and went together again, everything had been thought out so there
was about no possibilty of things being fitted upside down or wrong way around - very clever = ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
I didn't have to press the bearings off the crank though.
They still seemed like new, after quite a mileage it must be said.
Maybe it was the individual oil supply to each and every one of them = ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

re; “It was also easy and intuitive how it came apart and went together again, everything had been thought out so there was about no possibilty of things being fitted upside down or wrong way around - very clever = ATTENTION TO DETAIL.”

Not true Rohan :!: --you must have missed rebuilding bikes like the Yamaha RD250/350,400 , Lc250/350, TZ250/350-all these have a gear selector star that has TWO slots broached at 180degrees from each other, so if you refit it the wrong way round you will end up getting neutral between the two top gears, chewing them up, instead of 1st & 2nd.
This is only one example of the many other different things that could go wrong to a less than sharp eyed home build mechanic :!: :shock: :(
 
If you are fixing a Norton or a Harley, it is possible to make all the bits yourself - not so easy with Japanese bikes. I don't know anyone who has ever made crankcases or barrels for a Japanese bike. A few years ago a fried of mine built A Suzuki Cobra racer with 2/3 of a GT750 crank and appropriately shortened barrels to get the timings right. He said to me 'if I'm ever stuck for pistons, I will make them'. If you know anything about Jack Findlay, when he won his first Senior GP it was with an air cooled TR500 fitted with borrowed factory pistons. After he had won the GP the Suzuki factory asked for the return of their pistons, which were second hand even before Findlay received them. The Japanese racing pistons might look like any other pistons however ....... ? I suggest that quite a lot of their racing bikes are like that. Honda still has the VFR750R racer which is full of trick bits, the version you can buy is nothing like it. With Yamaha, I believe the closest anyone ever got to buying on of their racers was when the OWO1 was released. Certainly very few people ever got hold of one of their rotary valve two strokes. Japanese bikes are beautiful however if you want to race one, it is a whole different ball game. Yes, they have attention to detail, however the one you can buy doesn't have anywhere near the same level of detail as the one the factory races.
 
A few nights ago on our government radio station (ABC) there was a discussion about 3D printers during the talk-back sessions. It became very apparent to me that many people have no appreciation of materials development. I was involved for many years developing and testing high strength steels for use in making gun barrels for ships and tanks etc. The work that goes into getting the mechanical properties is phenomenal. When I saw the failure of those Chinese conrods which destroyed Paul Hallam's Harley engine, it showed one of their industrial weaknesses to me.
I suggest the work that guys like Comonoz, Maney and Jim Schmidt do is extremely important, we need more people to be trained up to have those capabilities. I note that Dave Nourish has given up and I just hope that his successor is really switched on. Racing is important, it is a reason for pursuing excellence. With their culture the Chinese will always be playing catch-up.
 
Rohan said:
acotrel said:
About design life. I believe the design concept was different for the Commando compared with Japanese bikes. The Norton is completely rebuildable by backyard mechanics, as are Harleys.
Click to expand...


I have rebuilt a few japanese motorcycles.
After replacing all the silly cheesehead screws with socket heads, it must be said.
Click to expand...

Sure they are,that is why 1000's of British bikes ended up in the back of sheds.garages,out buildings and barns over the last 80 years after being butchered.
The fact is they are not that easy to work on in depth as has been proven,very few motorcycle engines are (in depth)
Post a picture of your valve spring compressor and assorted specialised tools to suit working on British engines which without,work can not be done,ohhh wait a minute.

As far as the chessey screws on Japanese engines that is no different,they were fine if you used Japanese Industrial Standard screwdrivers.
A million buffoons used Phillips screwdrivers to bugger them instead of the correct JIS tool be it screwdriver or bit for a handhand impact. :roll:
 
I've seen those cheeseheads come back from a Dealer service with the crosses mutilated. !
If they weren't soft as butter, it might help.

Changing them to stainless socketheads means they don't corrode, AND can be undone anywhere anytime with no drama if needed.
Just remember to keep the hex key in the toolkit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top